THE  LITTLEJOIIX  LIBEL  mi 


THE  C^SE 


OF 


DE  WITT  C.  LITTLEJOHN 

cif/amst 

HORACE  GREELEY, 


TRIED  AT  THE 


OSWEGO  TEPi3I  OF  THE  SUPREilE  COURT  OF  THE  STATE  OF 
NEW  YORK,  AT.  PULASKI,  SEPT.  10-13,  1861, 


BEFORE 


HIS  HONOR,  WILLIAM  J.  BACON, 


CONTAINING 


THE  RULINGS  OF  JUDGE  BACON,  THE  ARGUMENTS,  AND  POINTS  OF 
MESSRS.  D.  H.  MARSH,  I.  T.  WILLIAMS,  JOHN  K.  PORTER, 
CHAS.  B.  SEDGWICK,  AND  HENRY  A.  FOSTER. 


PHONOGEAPHIOALLY   REPORTED   EY   JAMES  L.  CROSB-X. 


NEW  YORK : 
PUBLISHED   BY  THE   TRIBUNE  ASSOCIATION 

154    ISr  J^SSJ^TJ  STREET. 
1S61. 


20  ' 


0  c  • 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Dl  rst  Old  York  Library 


THE  LITTLEJOHX  LIBEL  SUIT. 


THE  EYIDEXCE,  AEGUMEXTS,  CHARGE,  etc. 


The  case  of  Littlejolin  agt.  Greeler,  which  has 
excited  so  much  interest — more  especially  in  the 
political  community — was  brought  to  an  issue  on 
Thursday,  September  12th.  The  trial  commenced 
on  Tuesday,  in  the  Supreme  Court  Circuit,  held 
at  the  Tillage  of  Pulaski,  Oswego  County.  Curi- 
osity and  interest  had  drawn  large  numbers  of 
people  from  the  surrounding  country  and  from 
nearly  all  parts  of  the  State,  who  looked  forward 
with  anxiety  to  the  expected  developments  of  the 
doings  of  the  third  House,  in  the  legislative  busi- 
ness of  the  State — the  list  of  witnesses  on  both  \ 
sides  comprising  many  of  the  most  prominent 
political  men — and  the  little  town  was  crowded  • 
with  strange  faces.  j 

Justice  Bacon  of  Utica  presided.  The  Hon. 
Henry  Foster  of  Rome,  the  Hon.  C.  B.  Sedg- 
wick of  Syracuse,  and  Messrs.  Marsh,  Webb,  and  ' 
J.  C.  Churchill  of  Oswego,  appeared  for  the  plain- 
tiff. I.  T.  WiUiams,  esq.,  of  New-York,  Messrs. 
Porter  and  Cagger  of  Albany,  and  Messrs.  Grant 
and  AUen  of  Oswego,  appeared  for  the  defendant,  j 

The  Complaint  and  Answer  in  this  case  are  as 
follows : 

SUPREME  COURT-COUNTY  OF  OSWEGO. 
SUMMONS  FOR  RELIEF. 
De  Witt  C.  Littlejobn  agt.  Horace  Greeley. 
To  Horace  Greeley,  Defendant:  You  are  here- 
by summoned  to  answer  the  complaint  of  De  Witt  C.  Littlejolin,  ' 
plaintiff,  a  copy  of  which  is  herewith  served  on  you,  and  to  serve 
a  copy  of  your  answer  on  the  subscribers,  at  their  otli';e  in  the 
City  and  County  of  Oswego,  within  twenty  days  alter  the  service 
ol  this  summons,  exclusive  of  the  day  of  service,  or  tae  plaintitf 
will  apply  to  the  Court  lor  the  relief  demanded  in  the  com- 
plaint, MARSH  6:  \\EBB, 

riainiia's  AtcorneyB. 


SUPREME  COURT. 

De  Witt  C.  Littlejobn  agt.  Horace  Greeley. 

Osu-es-o  Count?/,  SS. — I)e  Witt  C.  Littlejobn,  plaint- 
iff in  this  action,  complains  of  Horace  Greeley,  defendant  there- 
in, and  shows  to  the  Court  here  thit  the  plaintiff  was  a  member 
of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  New- York,  whose  session  com- 
menced on  the  first  Tuesdaj-  of  January,  1860,  and  was  the  rep- 
resentative from  the  first  Assembly  District  of  Oswego  County 
in  the  Assembly  of  said  State  at  said  session  of  said  Legislature, 
and  the  said  plaintiff  further  shows  that  be 'ore  the  26tli  day  of 
September,  liitjO  he  had  been  renominated  in  said  Assembly  Dis- 
triut  as,  and  had  become,  and  was  a  candidate  for  re-election  as 
member  of  the  Assembly  cf  the  S'.ate  of  New-York  to  represent 
said  district  in  the  Legislature  of  said  Sta-.e. 

That  on  or  about  the  2Gth  day  of  September,  1860,  the  said  de- 
fendant was  one  of  the  editors,  proprietors  and  publishers  of  a 
certain  newspaper,  printed  and  published  in  the  City  of  New- 
York  under  tbe  name  of  The  '-New- York  Tribtne."  That 
on  or  about  the  Sdid  2eth  day  of  September,  the  said  defendant 
contriving  and  wickedly  and  maliciously  intending  to  injure  the 
plaiutitl  in  his  good  name,  fame  and  credit,  and  to  cause  it  to  be 
suspected  and  believed  that  tbe  plaintiff  was  influenced  in  his 
acts  and  doings  as  such  legislator  by  corrupt  motives,  and  that  he 
was  corrupt  as  such  legislator,  and  was  therefore  an  unlit  and  im- 
proper man  to  be  re-elected  as  a  member  of  the  Legislature,  did, 
to  wit:  at  Oswego  in  the  County  of  Oswego  and  elsewhere 
falsely,  wickedly,  and  maliciously  compose  and  publish  and  cause 
and  procure  to  be  printed  and  published  in  the  said  newspaper 
of  and  concerning  the  plaintiti  and  of  and  concerning  his  acts  and 
doings  as  such  legislator  aforesaid,  and  against  his  good  name, 
f  ime  and  character,  a  false,  scandalous,  malicious  and  defamato- 
ry lioel  in  the  words  and  figure- following,  that  is  to  say:  "A 
Correspondent  earnestly  inquires  our  opinion  concerning  the 
nomination  for  members  of  the  Legislature  of  D.  C.  Littlejohn  at 
Oswego  (the  plaintiff  meaning),  and  of  Austin  Meyers  at  Syracuse. 
On  this  subject  our  opinion  has  been  so  often  expressed  that  it  can- 
not bein  doubt.  Beth  these  persons  were  prominentin  the  corrupt 
legislation  of  last  Winter.  Accordingly, both  of  them  ought  now 
to  be  defeated.  Or,  if  they  must  be  sent  back  to  pursue  their 
career  at  Albany,  it  should  not  be  the  work  of  Republican 
veters  "  (mt-aning  and  intending  thereby  to  cliarge  that  the  legis- 
laiion  of  the  Legi>lature  of  the  State  of  New-York,  last  Winter, 
was  corrupt,  thit  the  legislators  thereof  were  Influenced  by  cor- 
rupt motives,  ani  tha:  the  plaiutitl  was  prominent  in  such  cor- 
rupt legislation,  and  that,  being  thus  corrupt,  he  ought  not  to  be 
re-elected  to  the  suid  Legislature),  and  thU  complainant  further 
shows  that,  by  reason  ol  the  printing  and  publishing  of  the  said 
folse,  scandalous,  malicious,  slanderous,  and  d-^fanatory  words, 
by  the  said  defendant,  the  said  plaintitf  has  sustained  great  in- 
jury to  his  sood  name,  fame,  ci  edit,  and  character,  and  has  been, 
and  is,  suspected  to  have  acted  corruptly  a<  such  legislator  afore- 
said, to  the  damage  of  the  said  plaintiti  of  twenty-five  thousand 
dollars. 

Wherefore,  the  plaintiff  demands  judgment  against  the  said 
defendant  for  the  said  sum  of  #2.5,ti00,  with  costs." 

iMARSH     WEBB,  of  the  City  of  Oswego, 
Plainiiff  s  Attorneys. 


4 


State  of  Kevj-  York,  Oswego  County,  ss. :  De  Witt  C.  Little- 
jolin,  the  above-named  plaintiff,  being  duly  sworn,  deposes  and 
says  that  the  foiegoin:;  complahit  is  true,  of  his  own  knovvledse, 
except  as  to  those  matters  stated  on  information  and  belief,  and 
as  to  those  matters  he  believes  it  to  be  true. 

D.  C.  LITTLEJOHN. 
Sworn  this  5th  day  of  December,  WGO,  before  me. 

J.  E.  BLODGETT,  Justice  of  the  Peace. 


SUPREME  COURT. 
De  Witt  C.  Littlejohu  agt.  Horace  Greeley. 

Coxinfj/  of  (J.-ncrgo,  ss. — The  detendant  iu  this  action 
by  T.  T.  AVilliams,  bis  attoraey  for  answer  to  the 
plaintiffs  complaint  therein,  says:  That  at  the  time  of, 
and  immediately  before  the  pnblication  of  the  words 
in  the  said  complaint  set  forth  aud  referred  to,  the 
said  defendant,  as  such  editor  and  proprietor  of  said 
newspaper,  was  earnestly  inquired  of  as  to  his  opinion 
concei'uing  the  nomination  for  a  member  of  the  Legis- 
lature of  the  said  plaintiif ;  that  as  such  editor  and 
publisher,  and  as  a  public  journalist,  it  was  the  busi- 
ness, dury  and  right  of  the  said  defendant,  fully, 
fairly,  and  truly  to  answer  such  in(^uiry,  and  state 
fully  and  according  to  his  best  knowlege,*  information 
and  belief,  such  opiuion  as  he  entertained  couceruing 
said  plaiutitf,  and  concerning  his  said  nomination,  aud 
the  facts  and  rei)resentatious  and  reports  upon  which 
such  opinion  was  founded;  that,  thereupon,  and  in 
pursuance  of  said  inquiry,  and  iu  answer  thereto,  he 
did  publish  and  cause  to  be  printed  and  published  the 
■words  iu  said  complaint  stt  forth;  that  said  publica- 
tion -was  made  in  good  faith,  in  the  true  aud  honest 
belief  that  the  same  was  iu  every  respect  just  and  true, 
and  with  good  motives,  and  for  justifiable  ends,  to 
•wit:  that  some  person,  other  than  the  said  plain- 
titt",  and  more  lit  aud  proper  to  be  a  legislator  of  the 
State  01  Xew-York  than  the  said  plaiuiiti',  should  be 
elected  as  a  member  of  said  Legislature,  instead  and 
in  place  of  the  said  plaintiff,  who  was  so  then  in 
nomination,  and  a  candidate  for  election,  as  a  member 
of  such  Legislature,  and  canvassing  for  yotes  in  favor 
of  his  election  to  said  Legislature  in  preference  to  a 
candidate  who,  as  the  defendant  verily  believed,  was 
a  better  and  a  fitter  man,  to  wit;  one  Leauder  Bab- 
cock,  who  was  the  candidate  and  in  nomination  for 
election  as  a  member  of  said  Legislature  in  opposition 
to  said  plaiuiiflF. 

And  for  a  second  and  separate  defense  to  said 
cause  of  action  in  said  complaint  alleged,  the 
said  defendant  says  that  the  Legislature  and  the  said 
Assembly  in  said  complaint  referred  to,  during  the 
session  thereof,  in  the  year  1860,  pas.sed  divers  and 
sundry  acts,  to  wit:  An  act  entitled  "  An  Act  to  au- 
thoiize  the  sale  of  certain  lands  belonging  to  the  State, 
and  to  empower  the  Corporation  of  ihe  City  of  New- 
York  to  purchase  the  same.  '  Also  an  act  entitled 
"  An  Act  to  authorize  the  construction  of  a  railroad  in 
Avenue  D,  East  Broadway,  and  other  streets  and 
avenues  of  the  City  of  2sew-York."  Also  an  act  en- 
titled "An  Act  to  authorize  the  construction  of  a  rail- 
road in  Seventh  avenue,  and  in  certain  other  streets 
and  avenues  of  the  City  of  New-York."  Also  an  act 
entitled  "  An  Act  to  authorize  the  construction  of  a 
railroad  in  Fourteenth  street  and  in  other  streets  and 
avenues  of  the  City  of  New-York;"  also,  an  act  en- 
titled An  act  to  authoiize  the  construction  of  a  rail 
road  in  Tenth  avenue,  Forty-second  street,  and  cer- 
tain other  avenues  and  streets  in  the  City  of  New- 
Y'ork." 

That  said  acts  were  and  are,  aud,  for  a  long  time 
before  the  publication  of  the  said  words  iu  the  said 
complaint  set  forth,  had  been  called,  denominated,  and 
known  in  the  community  and  among  all  good  and 
worthy  citizens  of  the  State  of  New-York  as  "cor- 
rupt legi^'lation,■■  and  were  at  the  time  of  said  publica- 
tion so  denominated  in  common  parlance  by  such  citi- 
zens, the  whole  of  which  said  legislation  was  greatly 
disapproved  of  by  all  such  good  and  worthy  citizens 
of  the  State  of  New-York,  and  was  in  fact  mischievous 
and  injurious  to  the  public  interest. 


That  in  and  about  procuring  such  legislation  large 
sums  of  money  were  generally  and  publicly  reported, 
understood,  reputed,  and  believed  to  have  been  im- 
])ronerly  used  and  expended  iu  inlhiencing  members  of 
said  Legislature  to  vote  for  the  same,  aud  other  im- 
])roper  influences  were  generally  and  publicly  re- 
ported, understood,  and  believed  to  have  been 
used  for  that  purpose,  and  which  said  legislaticm  was 
generally  reputed,  understood,  and  believed  to  be  and 
to  have  been  corrupt.  That  this  defendant,  at  the  time 
of  the  publication  iu  s^iid  complaint  mentioned,  fully 
believed  such  reports  to  be  true.  That  the  said  plain- 
tiff in  fact  was  active  and  prominent  iu  said  legislation 
— to  wit:  as  Sj)eaker  of  the  said  House  of  Assembly, 
and  otlierwise  actively  exerted  himself  iu  procuring 
the  passage  of  said  acts  in  the  said  House  of  Assem- 
bly, and  did,  as  a  member  of  said  Hout^e,  therein  advo- 
cate and  vote  for  the  passage  of  the  same,  publicly 
aud  privately,  and  was  generally  known  to  favor  au'd. 
to  be  in  favor  of  said  acts  and  of  the  passage  thereof 
respectively. 

As  to  each  of  the  said  acts  the  said  defendant  says, 
;  that  at  the  times  when  the  same  was  passed  and  was 
so  voted  for  by  the  said  plaintiff,  the  same  was,  ever 
since  hath  been,  and  still  is,  of  a  nature  and  tendency 
highly  prejudicial  to  the  interests  and  welfare  of  the 
people  of  this  State;  that  at  the  time  when  he,  the  said 
pL-iintilf,  so  voted  for  the  same  he,  the  said  plaintiff, 
well  knew  and  fully  believed  such  to  be  the  evil  nature 
and  tendency  of  such  act,  and,  as  he  also  well  knew, 
'  was  bound  \r\  law  aud  morals,  aud  by  his  duty  as  such 
,  member  of  Assembly,  to  voteagsiinst  the  same;  yet  he, 
the  said  plainiiiT,  wickedly,  willfully,  and  corruptly 
I  dieregarding  his  said  duty  in  that  behalf,  and  with  the 
dishonest  intent  and  purpose  of  working  such  prejudice 
'  to  the  iuterests  and  welfare  of  the  said  people,  and 
sacrificing  the  same  to  advance  the  personal  and  indi- 
vidual interests  hereinafter  in  this  defense  stated,  did 
vote  for  such  act  as  aforesaid;  that  said  plaintiff's  mo- 
live  in  so  willfully  and  corruptly  voting  for  the  said 
first-mentioned  act  was  so  to  advance  the  personal  and 
:  individual  interests  of  James  B.  Taj  lor  and  Ow^en  W. 
Breunan,  and  divers  other  persons  interested  therein, 
i  and  that  as  to  each  of  the  other  acts  above  mentioned, 
his  motive  in  so  voting  for  the  same  was  so  to  advance 
the  personal  aud  individual  interests  of  the  persons 
I  named  in  the  first  section  of  such  act,  and  of  divers 
;  other  persons  interested  in  said  acts  respectively,  as  the 

■  defendant  is  informed  aud  believes. 

That  the  said  defendant  did  with  good  motives  and 
for  justifiable  ends,  and  in  accordance  with  his  duty  as 
fcuch  journalist,  editor,  and  publisher,  and  in  good  faith, 
and  without  any  malice  or  other  evil,  or  unjustifiable 
\  motive,  cause  to  be  piiuted  and  published  the  said 
words  in  said  complctint  set  forth. 

And  for  a  third  and  separate  defense  to  the  said  ac- 
tion, the  defendant  says,  that  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  of  New- York,  which  commenced' its  session  on 
j  the  first  Tuesday  of  January,  1860,  and  the  House  of 
1  Assembly  of  said  Legislature  did,  during  said  session, 
pass  divers  acts,  to  wit:  the  acts  aforesaid,  the  pas- 
sage of  which  said  acts  by  the  House  of  Assembly  and 
Senate  of  such  Legislature  were  aided  and  promoted 
by  improper  influences  brought  to  bear  upon  said  Leg- 
'  iislature,  and  upon  divers  members  thereof,  and  that 
1  corrupt  influences  were  used  to  procuie  the  passage  of 
j  said  acts,  bj  persons  who  had  no  voice  or  vote  in  said 
I  Legislature,  and  who  were  not  entitled  or  authorized 
i  to  interfere  with  said  Legislature,  or  the  members^^f 
!  said  Houses,  or  either  of  them,  or  in  the  legislation 
thereof,  but  who,  on  the  contrary  thereof,  acted  from 
,  personal,  selfish,  mercenary,  and  corrupt  motives,  and 
1  not  with  a  view  to  promote  the  common  weal  or  gen- 

■  eral  good  of  the  State,  or  the  citizens  thereof  generally, 
i  And  that  such  legislation  thereby  became  and  was 
j  corrui)t  legislation,  and  was  so  generally  denominated 

and  believed  to  be  by  the  good  and  worthy  citizens  of 
'  this  State,  who  were  conversant  with  the  facts  ecu- 


5 


nected  tlierevritb,  and  by  the  said  defendant;  that 
the  said  plaintiif  was  a  prominent  member  ot  said  Leg-  ; 
islature,  to  wit.  Speaker  of  Bald  Honee  of  Assembly, 
and  prominent  in  aiding  and  promoting  said  legisla- 
tion, and  advocated  the  same.    And  the  defendant  says 
that  the  said  words  in  said  complaint  set  forth,  and  so 
published  by  the  said  defendant  as  aforesaid,  were  not 
understood  by  any  person  to  have  any  other  intent  or  \ 
meaning  than  to  charge  as  herein  aforesaid,  and  that  j 
within  that  intent  and  meaning  the  said  charge  is  true,  i 
as  hereinbefore  set  forth ;   that  the  said  defendant,  in; 
the  printing  and  publication  of  the  said  article  or  words  [ 
in  the  said  complaint  set  forth,  caused  to  be  printed  and  1 
published  what  he  verily  believed  to  be  true,  and 
what  he  believed  the  public  interest  required  to  be  | 
known,  and  what  he  believed  it  was  his  duty  to  cautic  ' 
to  be  printed  and  published,  and  that  in  the  said  print- ' 
ing  and  publication  he  acted  without  malice,  and  ia 
the  discharge  of  his  duty  as  such  public  journalist, 
editor  and  proprietor,  he  being,  as  such  public  journal-  ; 
ist,  charged  with  the  duty  and  invested  with  the  right  j 
of  fully  canvasf<ing  the  merits  and  publicly  discussing 
the  fitness  of  all  persons  who  were  candidates  for  elec-  \ 
tion  to  public  office  or  places  of  public  trust.  | 
And  for  a  fourth  and  separate  defense  to  the  said  ! 
cause  of  action,  the  defendant  says,  on  information  and  | 
belief,  that  the  acts  aforesaid  were  in  fact  corrupt 
legislation,  and  that  the  passage  of  said  acts,  and  each 
of  them,  by  the  said  Legislature,  and  by  the  said 
House  of  Assembly,  was  aided  and  promoted  by  per- 
sons commonly  called  Lobby  Members,  and  persons 
who  had  no  voice  or  vote  iii  said  Legislature,  and 
were  not  entitled  to  any  voice  or  vote  therein — and  by 
persons  who  had  a  personal,  priviate  and  pecuniary 
interest  in  the  said  acts,  and  by  persons  who  sought  in 
obtaining  the  passage  and  enactment  thereof,  and  of 
each  of  them,  to  promote  their  own  personal  and  private 
interest  in  disregard  of  and  to  the  detriment  of  the 

general  and  public  interest,  and  the  interest  and  well- 
eing  of  the  State,  and  the  people  thereof  at  large. 
And  that  the  passage  of  said  acts  was  aided,  and  that 
the  same  were  passed  and  enacted  by  the  said  Legisla- 
ture and  by  the  said  Assembly,  by  means  ot"^  and 
throagh  the  improper  and  corrupt  influences  aforesaid, 
brought  to  bear  upon  individual  members  of  said  Legis- 
lature and  said  House  of  Assembly,  and  that  the  said 
individual  members  of  said  Legit^lature  and  of  said 
House  of  Assembly  were  persuaded  and  influenced  by 
unstatesmanlike,  wrong,  selflsh,  sordid,  pecuniary  and 
corrupt  motives  in  past^sing,  enacting,  advocatiog,  and 
voting  for  the  passage  and  enactment  of  said  acts,  and 
each  of  them,  and  so  promoted,  advocated,  passed 
and  enacted  said  acts,  and  each  of  them,  influenced 
by  favor  and  afiectiou,  reward,  and  the  hope 
of  reward,  and  from  pecuniary  and  corrupt 
motives,  aims,  ends  and  purposes,  and  for  and  ia  the 
hope  of  receiving  money,  franchises,  privileges,  and 
otner  pecuniary,  seliisb,  and  merceniry  considerations, 
motives,  aims,  ends  and  purposes,  as'  well  for  them- 
selves as  for  their  friends  and  other  persons  who 
might  and  were  expected  to  account  to  such  indi- 
vidual members  of  said  Legi'^lature  and  Houee  of  As- 
sembly for  such  pecuniary  gain  or  advantage  as  should  I 
or  might  come  to  them  from,  on  account  of,  or  by  rea-  I 
son  of  such  legislation.  i 
And  the  delendant  says,  for  reasons  aforesaid,  the  ' 
said  Legislation  in  the  said  words  referred  to  was  ; 
corrupt  legislation — and  tbat  the  said  plaintiff  was 
active  and  prominent  in  said  legir-lation,  and  was  dur- 
ing the  whole  thereof  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Assem- 
bly, and  was  a  very  inlluential  member  thereof,  and 
that  the  said  plaintifl' advocated  the  passage  and  enact- 
ment of  said  acts,  and  was  known  as,  and  was  a 
prominent  promoter  and  advocate,  and  voted  for  said 
acts  and  each  of  them. 

And  the  said  defendant  says,  that  the  words  in  the 
said  complaint  set  forth,  so  published  by  the  said  de- 
fendant as  aforesaid,  were  not  imderstood  by  any  per- ; 


son  to  have  any  intent  or  meaning,  and  the  said  de- 
fendant had  no  intent  or  meaning  in  the  use  and  publi- 
cation of  said  w  ords,  than  to  charge  the  said  plaintiff 
as  herein  aforesaid,  nor  were  the  said  words  under- 
stood to  charge  anything  other  than  as  in  this  answer 
is  liereinbefoie  set  forth  to  be  the  truth  concerning  said 
Legislature  and  the  said  plaintifl". 

And  the  defendant  says  that,  in  publishing  sail 
words  in  said  complaint  set  forth,  and  in  causing  the 
same  to  be  printed  and  published,  he  published  and 
caused  to  be  printed  and  published,  the  truth,  and  that 
said  printing  and  publication  were  done  and  caused  to 
be  done  with  good  motives,  and  for  justiflable  ends, 
and  without  malice  or  other  improper  motive. 

And  fifthly  and  separately,  the  defendant  further 
asserts  and  states  the  several  facts  and  circumstances 
above  in  the  defenses  stated,  and  will  give  the  same  in 
evidence  on  the  trial  of  this  action,  in  mitigation,  to 
reduce  the  amount  of  damages  which  the  plaintitf  may 
claim  to  recover. 

I.  T.  WILLIAMS,  Attorney  for  Defendant. 

CitT/  and  Counti/  of  JS'erc-  York,  ss. — Horace  Greeley, 
the  delendant  in  the  above-entitled  action,  being  duly  sworn,  de- 
poses and  says,  that  he  has  read  the  foregoing  answer,  and  knows 
the  contents  thereof,  that  the  same  is  true  of  his  own  knowledge, 
except  as  to  the  matters  therein  stated  on  information  and  be- 
lief, and  as  to  these  matters  he  believes  the  same  to  be  true. 

HORACE  GREELEY. 
Sworn  to  before  me  this  23d  day  of  February,  1861. 

THUS.  SADLER,  Notary  Public. 


SUPREME  COURT— CiRcriT— Oswego  Covn-tt— Before 
Justice  Bacox. 
Littlejohn  agt.  Greeley. 

Monday,  Sept.  9,  1861. 

Attachments  were  ordered,  on  the  application  of 
Mr.  Allen  for  defendant,  for  witnesses  not  answering 
to  their  names,  viz.:  George  Law,  Thurlow  "Weed, 
James  B.  Taylor,  John  Kerr,  Hugh  J.  Hastings, 
Abraham  Van  Yechten,  Eichard  Busteed,  and  others. 

Mr.  Grant  for  defendant,  when  the  case  had  been, 
called  on  the  calendar,  suggested  that  on  account  of 
the  absence  of  so  many  witnesses,  the  cause  be 
set  down  for  to-morrow;  they  would  all  be  ready, 
doubtless,  for  to-morrow,  and  it  would  be  more  con- 
venient for  all. 

Mr.  Foster, for  plaintiff,  assenting,  it  was  so  ordered; 
and  cause  set  down  accordingly. 

Tuesday  Afternoon,  Sept.  10,  1861. 

Case  called,  and  the  following  gentlemen  impanneled 
as  Jurors : 

Peter  H.  Morrison  Williamstown. 

Samuel  Balcom  Redfield. 

Lewis  Smith  Coustantia. 

MiRON  Stevens  Orwell. 

John  R.  Mitchell  Parish. 

Nelson  White  Richland. 

L.  Weed  Richland. 

William  Scripture  Sandy  Creek. 

Walter  Pierce  Sandy  Creek. 

Henry  Mendall  Amboy. 

Daniel  B.  Daring  Coustantia. 

George  C.  Parker  Constantia. 

Mr.  Williams — If  your  Honor  please,  I  suppose  we 
have  the  opening. 

Mr.  Foster— I  suppose  not;  the  question  of  damages 
at  least  is  concerned  herCj  and  of  course  we  have  the 
opening. 

Mr.  Williams — The  criterion  of  opening,  if  your 
Honor  please,  is,  who  has  the  alHrmative  ?  The  an- 
swer in  this  case  contains  not  a  syllable  of  denial  of  any 


6 


tind  or  cliaracter;  the  questiou  of  damages  is  always 
open  in  every  case. 

The  Court— Is  the  publication  admitted  by  the  an- 
swer ? 

Mr.  Williams — Everything,  Sir;  the  answer  contains 
not  one  syllable  of  denial  of  any  kind  whatsoever. 

The  Court — The  rule  on  that  question  is  settled,  I 
believe;  when  the  complaint  is  all  admitted,  the  de- 
fense has  the  right  to  open. 

Mr.  Foster — That,  I  believe  your  Honor,  is  confined 
to  cases  when  the  sum  to  be  received  is  specific,  and 
the  plaintiff,  therefore,  has  nothing  to  do;  and  con- 
lined  to  those  cases  alone.  I  have  not  examined  all  the 
authorities  in  reference  to  this  particular,  because  I  did 
not  suppose  the  queation  would  be  rai  ed ;  but  I  feel  en- 
tirely confident  that  in  aH  cases  where  the  damages  are 
not  definitely  fixed  in  the  complaint,  the  plaiuiifi"  has 
the  opening. 

The  Court— W];at  would  be  the  object;  is  there 
anything  for  yon  to  prove  ? 

Mr.  Foster— Xo,  Sir;  nothing  at  all. 

The  Court — I  have  never  known  the  r^uestion  raised 
in  an  action  of  this  kind,  where  there  is  a  riuesiion  of 
damages.  Generally,  where  the  cause  of  action  is 
admitted,  there  is  no  controversy. 

Mr.  Foster — We  think  that,  in  the  opening  of  this 
case  we  have  to  present  this  libel  to  the  Jury ;  and  how 
is  it  to  be  done  unless  we  are  to  do  it?  | 

Mr.  Williams — Every  allegation  in  the  complaint  is 
admitted.  My  learned  friend  on  the  other  &ide  will  find  { 
it  impossible *to  put  his  hands  upon  a  case  which  con-  \ 
firms  the  statement  he  has  made.  j 

Mr.  Foster — I  can  find  an  abundance  of  them. 

Mr,  Williams — You  will  not  find  one  in  this  country 
or  in  Engldud. 

The  Court — A  very  recent  case  occurred  in  the  Vth 
District,  when  Judge  Smith  gave  the  opinion,  when 
the  question  arose,  and  he  allowed  the  plaintiff  the 
opening;  but,  on  an  appeal,  that  decision  was  reversed, 
and  the  Supreme  Court  held  that  he  was  in  error  to 
allow  it. 

Mr.  Williams — I  have  a  esse  here — in  the  7th  of 
English  Equity — a  case  brought  for  an  injury  where  ; 
the  question    of    damages    is   entirely  o}  en — una 
the  Court    says:     "The   test   to    determine  the' 
order  of  beginning  a  trial,  is  to  consider  which  party 
would  be  entitled  to  the  verdict,  supposing  no  evidence  ' 
given  on  either  side,  as  the  burden  of  proof  must  lie  on 
his  adversary."  i 

Mr.  Foster— 1  undertake  to  say  that  I  can  find  cases 
of  our  own  if  I  have  time ;  I  am  very  sure  my  friend  is 
mistaken.  *  i 

Mr.  Williams— I  thiak  I  have  looked  at  all  the  | 
cases  and  I  am  quite  sure  there  is  no  such  distinction  i 
as  my  learned  fritnd  seems  to  think.  i 

The  Court — I  am  sorry  this  question  had  not  at-  i 
tracted  the  attention  of  Coun>el  lefore. 

Mr.  Marsh — Perhaps  your  Ifonormay  be  relieved  by  ! 
the  fact  that  the  pleadings  oo  not  admit  all  the  allega- 
tion?. The  gentleman  states  that  we  aver  that  the  libel 
was  upon  Mr.  Littlejoim  and  of  his  particular  conduct, 
while  the  third  and  fourth  answers  aver  that  they  did 
publish  as  stated,  but  they  do  not  admit  the  allegation 
that  they  refer  to,  and  are  spoken  of,  Mr.  Littlejohn 
in  his  individual  capacity  as  a  legislator;  but  say  they 
spoke  of  legislation.  I  know  that  on  a  motion 
once  made  in  this  case,  my  learned  friend  contended 
that  was  a  question  to  be  submitted  to  the  Jury;  at 
any  rate  he  has  not  admitted  all  the  allegations  m  his 
answer.    I  may  as  well  read  them. 

[The  counsel  here  read  the  third  and  fourth  answers 
in  pleadings  already  published.] 

Mr.  Williams — If  your  Honor  please,  all  proper 
admissions  are  admissions  by  silence  in  the  pleadings. 


The  Code  provides  that  everything  alleged  in  the 
complaint  shall  be  deemed  to  be  admitted  which 
is  not  denied  in  the  answer.  lu  this  answer 
there  is  not  a  syllable  of  denial.  We  have 
taken  the  affirmative  on  every  point.  We  have 
not  denied  one  syllable,  but  we  have  taken  the 
burden  of  proof  directly  upon  our  shoulders.  I  see 
nothing  in  what  my  learned  friend  has  read  to  justify 
the  statement  he  made  before  he  commenced  reading. 
I  submit  to  your  Honor  that  the  case  we  have  pre- 
sented is  one  where  the  damages  were  not  fixed.  But 
if  that  were  the  criterion,  damages  in  this  case, 
judging  from  the  pleadings,  be  said  to  be  fixed,  for  the 
plaintiff  sa>s  he  has  suffered  damages  to  the  amount  of 
$■25,000,  and  the  ullegaTion  is  not  denied  in  the  answer. 

The  Court — I  don't  see  ho^  there  is  any  evidence  to 
be  given  iu  this  case  by  the  }ilaintiff;  and  if  there  was 
none  to  be  given  on  the  other  side,  he  would  undoubt- 
edly obtaia  a  verdict.  Even  iu  a  case  on  a  promissory 
note,  there  would  still  have  to  be  a  computation  of  in- 
terest. 

Mr.  Poster — If  your  honor  please — If  we  show  the 
authorities,  will  yon  give  us  our  rights  ? 
The  Court — Most  certainly. 

Mr.  Marsh — If  the  gentleman  will  take  the  benefit 
of  what  he  says,  we  will  take  damages  for  $20jOOO. 
Mr.  Williams — I  speak  of  the  pleadings. 
Mr.  Sedgwick — Why,  we  should  then  be  at  liberty 
to  go  on  and  give  evidence;  there  is  no  possible  evi- 
dence upon  which  you  could  give  $"25,000 — no  possible 
way  of  taking  a  judgment  for  $25,000. 

Mr.  Williams — It  is  very  easy  for  the  counsel  to 
maintain  that  they  could  prove  facts  not  contained  in 
the  complaint;  but  they  do  not  pretend  that  anything 
in  the  complaint  is  denied. 

IMr.  Sedgwick— Do  you  pretend  that  we  could  take  a 
verdict  for  $25,000  ? 

Mr.  Williams — That  is  not  material  in  the  case  at  all ; 
you  have  nothing  to  prove,  if  we  sit  down  and  say 
nothing  you  would  claim  judgment  on  the  pleadings. 

Mr.  Foster — We  could  prove  other  publications  to 
show  express  malice,  to  enhance  our  damages. 

The  Court — What!  not  under  your  present  com- 
plaint ? 

Mr.  Foster — Certainly;  there  is  no  doubt  of  that. 
Mr.  Williams— It  would  be  impossible  for  them  to 
prove  malice  beyond  what  is  set  forth  in  the  complaint ; 
every  syllable  of  that  stands,  if  we  were  to  give  no 
evidenc-e  they  can  give  none;  you  cannot  prove  what 
you  have  not  averred;  the  Court  of  Appeals  have 
decided  that. 

Mr.  Foster  suggested  that  if  the  Court  would  take  a 
retess  the  authorities  in  the  case  might  be  found. 
The  Court  took  a  rece&s  of  one  hour. 

I  EVENING  SESSION. 

j     Mr.  Foster — I  will  cite  to  your  Honor  from  Gra- 
i  ham's  Practice,  page  289;  also,  from  3d  Bosworth,. 
j  commencing  page  200,  the  case  of  Fry  and  Bennett — 
the  2d  note  and  the  5th  head  note.    The  answer  in  the 
case  of  Fry  and  Bennett  was  as  follows:    The  defense 
set  up, 

!  1.  "  The  items  contained  in  tha  article  are  true." 
j  That  is  our  case  here. 

I  2.  "  These  articles  are  fair  and  impartial  criticisms." 
,  That  is  our  case  too. 

i  3.  "That  the  defendant  had  probable  cause  to  be- 
j  lieve  them  to  be  true,  and  did  believe  them  to  be  true, 
j  and  published  them  without  any  malice."  That  is  our 
j  case  also. 

I  Mr.  Williams— If  your  honor  please,  I  was  cot 
ignorant  of  the  case  of  Fry  and  Bennett;  and  if  the 
counsel  had  only  read  that  case,  I  apprehend  he  would 
not  have  made  the  statement  which  he  did.  The  rule 
laid  down  in  Graham's  Practice  embraces^  all  cases. 
The  learned  counsel  claims  an  exception  in  all 
those  cases  where  the  amount  of  damages  is  hot; 


1 


iixed  in  the  complaint;  vet  that  is  certidiily  at  vari- 
ance with  three  or  four  of  the  cases  cited  ia  Graham. 
Ttiere  is  no  doubt,  as  said  in  Graham,  that  the  Eng- 
lish Jndyes  had  begun  to  refine  u])0u  this  matter,  and 
tiaally  they  came  to  a  determination  that  they  wou'd 
establish  an  arbitrary  rule.  Consequently  they  sin- 
gled out  some  cases  in  which  they  would  give  the 
opening  to  the  plaintirt",  and  among  them  was  the  case 
of  hbel.  Tbey  did  not  establish  a  principle.  Your 
Honor  will  observe  they  only  establish  a  rule, 
and  the  rule  is  wholly  arbiirary,  for  they  omit  the  case 
of  malicious  prosecution.  Now,  if  your  Honor  please, 
as  to  the  case  of  Fry  and  Bennett.  If  the  learned 
counsel  wishes  to  stand  upon  that  case,  let  him 
admit  on  the  record  that  the  communication  is 
a  privileged  one.  Let  him  admit  that,  and  he 
must  give  affirmative  evidence  of  malice;  and  with 
that  aumission  on  the  record,  let  hiui  proceed  and  give 
Lis  affirmative  proof.  Now,  I  assert  that  the  rule  I 
maintain  is  the  uniform  practice  of  the  Courts  in  this 
State.  We  have  never  adopted  the  English  arbitrary 
rule. 

The  Court — I  don't  know  that  there  has  been  any 
rule  established  in  the  Courts  in  this  State  ;  I  am  cer- 
tain there  is  not  any  in  the  rural  district?.  But  it 
seems  to  me  that  the  case  in  3d  Bosworth  is  very  dear 
authority  of  the  right  of  the  plaintitf  to  open.  I  shall 
rule  that  the  plaintitf  has  the  right  accordingly. 

Exception  for  defendant. 

MR.  MARSH'S  OPENING. 
Mr.  Marsh— If  the  Court  please,  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Jury ;  the  case  which  you  are  called  upon  to  try  is 
an  action  for  libel:  a  printed  communication  in  The 
Tribune,  published  in  New- York  by  Horace  Greeley, 
the  defendant,  charging  De  Witt  C.  Littlejohn,  the 
plaintiff",  with  corruption  as  a  legislator.  Several  arti- 
cles appeared  at  different  times  m  The  Tribune  upon 
that  subject — one  upon  the  11th  of  September,  aiid 
another  one — the  one  upon  which  this  action  is  founded 
— on  the  26th  of  September,  and  a  third  one  on  the  8th 
of  October.  Mi\  Littlejohn  saw  the  article  of  the  26r,h 
of  September,  the  one  upon  which  we  sue,  and  wrote 
to  Mr.  Greeley  expressly  denying  the  allegations  iu 
that  article.  Mr.  Greeley  publislied  that  letter,  with  a 
tirade  of  abuse — a  libei  far  worse  in  point  of  fact  than 
the  other  one — showing  a  degree  of  maliciousness  about 
it,  and  witliout  any  further  inquiry  into  its  premises. 
In  selecting  upon  the  libel  on  which  the  action  is 
brought — for  we  did  not  choose  to  bring  an  action  on 
all  of  them — we  selected  this  second  one,  which  is  iu 
these  words : 

"  A  correspondent  earnestly  iuquires  our  opinion  concerning 
the  nomination  Tor  meuibeis  of  the  Legislature  of  D.  C.  Little- 
john at  Oswego  and  of  Austin  Myers  at  Syracuse.  On  this  sub- 
ject our  opinion  has  been  so  often  exj-ressed  that  it  cannot  be  in 
doubt.  Both  tliese  persons  were  promiuent  iu  the  corrupt  legis- 
lation of  last  Winter.  Accordingly,  both  of  them  ought  now  to 
be  defeated.  Or,  if  they  must  be  sent  back  to  pursue  their  ca- 
reer at  Albany,  it  should  not  be  the  work  of  Rnpubiican  voters." 

Thereby  chaiginsr  Mr.  Littlejohn,  as  a  member  of 
that  Legislature  (and  it  is  well  known  to  all  of  us  that 
he  was  Speaker  of  the  House  at  the  time),  with  corrup- 
tion as  a  legislator.  By  bringing  the  action  upon  that 
particular  libel,  we  will  throw  the  whole  subject  open 
without  limit,  and  not  specifying  the  charge  which 
Mr.  Greeley  had  seen  lit  to  make  in  other  publications, 
and  throw  the  broad  subject  open  upon  the  charge  of 
coriuption  as  broad  as  it  could  be  made,  and  give  him 
all  the  chance  to  ])rove  any  act  of  corruption  upon  the 
part  of  Mr.  Littlejohn.  But,  now,  gentlemen,  we 
have  come  here  to  try  this  action;  and  that  the  case 
may  be  fully  understood,  it  may  be  right  and  proper 
that  I  should  at  some  length  state  the  grounds  of  the 
defense,  which  they  have  set  up  in  their  several 
answers.  And  it  is 'of  some  importance,  your  Honor, 
that  I  shottli  state  them  here,  because,  upon  these 


'  answers,  the  question  of  testimony  will  mainly  de- 
;  i)end ;  and  the  length  or  brevity  of  the  cauee  which  we 
are  about  to  try,  will  be  measured.  The  first  answer 
I  which  they  set  up,  I  call  an  answer,  claiming  the  com- 
I  muuication  as  a  "privileged  communication,"  for  he 
1  says: 

j  [The  counsel  here  read  the  first  answer  from  the 
;  pleadings.] 

j    The  first  time  I  may  venture  to  say  that  he  ever 
j  gave  a  Democrat  a  character  superior  to  that  of  a 
j  Whig  or  a  Republican,  whether  true  or  false.  That 
we  claim  to  be  a  plea  of  privilege  and  that  is  a  question 
[for  the  Court  solely  to  decide  upon.    I  know  on  a 
previous  occasion  on  a  motion  in  the  matter  it  was 
argued  that  was  a  question  for  the  jury,  but  I  conceive 
however  it  is  a  question  solely  for  the  court. 
I    Now  for  the  second  plea  : 

j  [The  counsel  here  read  the  second  answer  in  the 
pleadings.] 

There,  1  conceiye,  is  a  good  and  valid  plea  in  this 
case.  If  they  can  search  into  the  recesses  of  Mr. 
Littlejohn's  heart  and  find  that  his  motive  was  cor- 
rupt, and  find  what  his  thoughts  are,  and  if  he  thought 
corruptly,  why  then,  they  have  made  out  their  justifi- 
cation and  not  till  then.  And  yet  in  relation  to  these 
same  acts  not  a  remonstrance  was  heard  from  the  city 
of  New-York — these  railroad  acts  dignified  by  the 
Hon.  Horace  Greeley  as  the  "Gridu-on  Eailroads" 
— not  a  remonstrance  from  the  whole  city  of  New- 
York  was  ever  heard  against  any  one  of  them.  There 
were  applications  for  numerous  others,  and  often  as 
against  these,  but  no  remonstrance  was  heard;  though 
indeed  another  Legislature  has  intervened,  and  though 
Mr.  Littlejohn  has  been  again  the  Speaker  of  that 
Assembly,  Yet  no  one  remonstrance  against  these 
railroads  has  heen  heard  except  through  Horace 
Greeley  and  his  Tribune.  Now  for  the  third  defense. 
They  say : 

[The  counsel  read  the  third  answer  in  pleadings.] 

Now,  that  we  say  is  a  plea  amounting  in  a  few  words 
simply  to  this:  "that  the  legislation  was  corrupt,  and 
all  we  intended  to  charge  was  that  there  was  there  cor- 
rupt legislation,  not  that  Mr.  Littlejohn  was  corrupt." 
Now,  we  hold  that  no  evidence  whatever  can  be  given 
to  show  any  such  thing  as  that.  If  that  were  so — if 
evidence  could  be  given  as  to  these  reports  of  what  was 
done  in  the  Lobby,  why  all  the  members  of  the  Third 
House,  there,  Horace  Greeley  himself  included,  might 
be  called  up  to  testify  what  they  did  and  who  they  did 
it  with ;  who  they  paid  money  to ;  whose  influence  they 
tried  to  procure,  and  what  means  they  took  to  procure 
it.  You  will  see  at  once,  that  such  a  thing  could  not 
be  done,  because  the  Legislature  is  not  on  trial  here;  it 
is  Mr.  Littlejohn  alone  that  is  on  trial — and  the  ques- 
tion is,  whether  he  is  guilty  of  corrupt  legislation. 
Now,  the  fourth  answer,  I  may  say,  is  not  of  the  same 
import.  I  think  the  Counsel  will  not  require  that  I 
should  read  ir.   The  fifth  answer  says: 

[The  Coitnsel  lead  the  fifth  answer]. 

Now,  under  this  state  of  pleading,  your  Honor  will 
perceive  at  once  the  questions  will  arise  how  far  the 
reputation  of  any  such  thing  or  any  such  charges  could 
be  evidence,  or  how  the  acts  of  any  other  person  than 
Mr.  Littlejohn  can  be  evidence.  Every  person  knows 
how  easy  it  is  to  get  up  a  report  of  corruption.  No 
man,  your  Honor,  no  man,  gentlemen,  knows  that  bet- 
ter than  Horace  Greeley  himself;  for  no  one  among 
you  has  probably  forgotten  the  charge  which  was 
made  against  him — honest  as  he  is — with  having  re- 
ceived a  t  ribe  at  Washington  for  the  purpose  of  pass- 
ing certain  corrupt  measures  there.  No  one  has  proba- 
bly forgotten  the  fact  that  he  was  charged  with  re- 
ceiving a  !>i,000  check,  and  Mr.  Greeley  felt  very  in- 
dignant about  it,  and  undertook  to  explain  the  matter 
and  show  that  he  received  the  check  honestly.  If 
reputation  is  enough  to  make  the  standard  of  charac- 
ter the  reputation  which  the  honorable  gentleman 
there  acquired  might  conaemu  him.   I  speak  of  it  to 


8 


show  that  mere  reputation  is  not  to  take  away  the 
character  of  any  man;  and  I  eay  that  the  rule  of  law, 
establiehed  by  repeated  aud  numerous  decisions  in  this 
State,  is  not  to  admit  such  testimony  to  be  given,  and 
thej  used  language  like  this:  "If  such  testimony 
were  to  be  allowed,  and  public  report  or  reputation 
being  enough  to  fix  the  charge — all  that  anybody 
would  have  to  do  to  ruin  another  individual,  would  j 
be  to  get  up  a  report  that  he  was  guilty  of  a  certain  ! 
act,  and  when  he  was  prosecuted  for  libel,  then  he 
might  give  in  evidence  the  very  report  which  he  had 
himself  created  in  order  to  put  the  other  individual 
down.' 

1  have  been,  your  Honor,  a  little  more  full  in  stating 
these  things,  and  in  stating  the  pleadings,  that  you 
might  see  and  be  folly  aware  of  the  kind  and  character 
of  the  testimony  which  must  be  offered  under  such  a 
state  of  the  pleadings.  We  are  all  aware  that  a  large 
number  of  the  witnessess  are  here — a  large  number 
from  Oswego,  a  large  number,  I  understand,  from  the 
City  of  New-York,  and  a  number  from  this  place — and 
judging  from  the  pleadings,  we  can  suppose  that  the 
line  of  proof  which  will  be  attempted  will  be — first, 
that  there  was  such  a  reputation,  which  we  shall  ob- 
ject to,  of  course;  next,  that  there  was  a  reputation  of 
corrupt  legislation ;  that  we  shall  object  to  because  it 
does  not  tend  to  convict  Mr.  Littlejohu.  They  will 
attempt,  undoubtedly  to  show  that  iu  the  procuring  of 
these  acts  certain  persons  were  applicants,  and  certain 
other  persons  were  stockholders,  with  a  view  of  show- 
ing some  corruption  in  that  matter.  To  that  we  shall 
object;  if  they  can  show  that  De  Witt  C.  Littlejohu 
was  a  stockholder,  or  show  that  he  was  corrupt,  they 
are  at  liberty  to  do.  But  if  your  Honor,  after  a  review 
of  the  case  and  the  law  upon  the  subject,  sees  that  this 
testimony  is  not  proper,  we  then  bring  this  case  to  a 
speedy  conclusion,  for  it  leaves  them  only  one  other 
ground  of  defense,  or  two  at  the  most — one,  to  show 
actual  corruption  iu  De  Witt  G.  Littlejohn,  and  the 
otber — but  in  fact  it  is  the  only  defense  they  can  Have 
— the  other  may  be  to  attack  his  general  'moral  charac- 
ter, and  if  the  gentlemen  choose  to  do  that,  they  are 
welcome  to  the  fullest  opportunity. 

TESTIMONY  OF  JAMES  PLATT. 

James  Platt  for  plaintifi"  testified  that  he  was  ac- 
quainted with  the  circulation  of  The  N.  Y.  Tribune. 

Mr.  Porter  for  defendant  objected,  on  the  ground 
that  there  was  no  allegation  which  calls  for  the  proof; 
and  there  is  no  denial  of  the  master  alleged  in  the  com- 
plaint. 

Overruled — Exception  for  defendant. 

Mr.  Platt  further  testified  the  circulation  of  The 
Tribune  was  very  large  in  Western  New-York,  Oiiio, 
Wisconsin,  and  Michigan — though  he  was  not  a  sub- 
scriber to  the  paper — aud  from  general  reputation  he 
should  say  it  had  an  extended  circulation  over  this 
county  [Oswego]. 

Mr.  Marsh  then  offered  in  evidence  a  copy  of  The 
N.  Y.  Tribune,  dated  Sept.  11,  1860,  and  ofiered  to 
read  the  article  headed  "  Legislative  Corruption,"  for 
the  purpose  of  showing  the  'juo  animo. 

Mr.  Porter  for  defendant  objected  on  the  following 
gi'ounds : 

Ist.  That  the  article  is  not  counted  on  in  tbe  com- 
plaint. 

2d.  That  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been  written  by 
the  defendant. 

3d.  That  it  is  not  within  the  issue  made  by  the 
pleadings. 

Obiection  overruled — exception  for  defendant. 
Mr.  Marsh  then  read  the  article  referred  to  as 
follows: 

Legislative  CoRRrPTiox. — Certain  local  journals  persist 
in  misrepresentations  of  the  course  of  The  Tribune  respecting 
State  matters  so  gross  that  we  cannot  refrain  from  noticing  them. 
We  tBie  the  following  from  a  leader  in  the  last  Chatauqua  Dem- 
ocrat as  a  sample: 


"  There  may  have  been,  and  doubtless  was.  the  Ms«a/ amoiint 
of  'Legislative  corruption'  at  Albany  last  Winter.  But  that 
there  was  that  which  should  justify  the  wholesale  and  indiscrim- 
inate denunciaiionsi  of  that  Legislature,  with  which  tlie  columns 
of  The  Tribune  have  teemed  for  many  months,  we  have  no 
evidi  nce  of,  and  do  not  believe. 

'•  In  our  own  county,  Mr.  W.  L.  Sessions  was  the  especial 
object  of  The  Tribune's  denunciations,  and  why  ?  Simply  be- 
cause he  was  a /earfj/jp  aud  prominent  member  of  th&Stnate. 
Although  the  shafts  of  The  Tribi  ne  have  assumed  a  more  per- 
sonal  aspect  toward  Mr.  Sessions,  they  have  been  aimed  indis- 
criminately at  Mr.  Smith  and  every  other  member  of  the  Legis- 
lature. There  have  been  no  exceptions  in  this  wholesale  abuse 
of  the  last  Legislature  If  The  Tribune  was  honest,  why  does 
it  not  particularize  and  discriminate  1  There  were  scores  of  Re- 
publicans who  voted  atjainst  all  those  measures  denounced  as 
venal  and  corrupt,  and  yet  they  are  all  included  in  the  anathemas 
of  The  Tribune." 

Every  careful  reader  of  The  Trirune  knows  how  unjust, 
how  essentially  false,  are  the  material  portions  of  the  above. 
Time  and  again  have  we  urged  that  very  discrimination  which 
The  Democrat  accuses  us  of  ignoring — time  and  again  have  we  ex- 
plained that  no  Legislature  ever  contained  more  upright  and 
worthy  members  than  our  last.  Messrs.  Bell,  Murphy,  Man- 
lERRE,  and  others  in  the  Senate— Messrs.  Lucius  Robinson, 
CoNKLiNG,  Flagler,  &c.,  in  the  House — forming  about  half  the 
Republicans  in  either  branch — were  as  honest  and  faithful  legis- 
lators as  our  State  ever  had ;  and  this  we  have  repeatedly  asserted 
and  proved  by  their  acts.  There  was  a  very  different  lot  of  Re- 
publicans, however,  forming  nearly  half  of  those  elected,  who 
conspired  with  seven-eighths  to  nine-tenths  of  the  Democrats  to 
pass  some  of  the  most  corrupt  and  unjustifiable  acts  that  ever 
were  put  through  a  Legislature,  as  our  columns  have  likewise  re- 
peatedly shown.  That  Mr.  Session's  name  appears  habitually  in 
this  latter  category,  we  deeply  regret ;  but  the  fault  ia  entirely  his 
own.  There  may  have  been  fools  in  that  Legislature  who  voted 
wrongly  because  they  knew  no  better:  but  he  is  not  one  of 
these. 

— As  we  are  challenged  for  specifications,  with  the  cool  asser- 
tion that  there  was  "  the  usual  amount  of  Legislative  corruption 
at  Albany  last  Winter,"  we  will  merely  premise  that,  if  that 
was  but  "  the  MswaZ  amount,"  it  is  high  time  that  it  should  be 
rendered  wrausual,  and  this,  by  the  blessing  of  God  and  with  the 
help  of  the  People,  we  mean  to  secure.  To  this  end,  let  us  once 
more  proceed  to  discriminations  and  specifications. 

— We  fear  it  is  true  that  some  "Legislative  corruption"  is 
"  usual"  at  Albany  and  at  other  capitals ;  but  has  it  ever  be- 
fore proceeded  to  such  extent  that  a  Governor  has  felt  con-S 
strained  to  veto  in  succession  half  a  dozen  of  the  principal 
measures  of  a  Legislature  wherein  his  political  friends  had  a 
majority?  We  can  recollect  but  two  instances  of  this— one  in 
Pennsylvania,  when  Gov.  Snyder  was  compelled  to  resort  to  the 
extremity  of  dissolving  the  Legislature,  to  prevent  the  corrupt 
passage  of  a  lot  of  Bank  charters ;  and  one  in  our  own  State, 
wherein  Gov.  Tompkins  had  to  do  substantially  the  same.  In 
either  case,  public  sentiment  almost  unanimously  condemned 
the  Legislative  majority  and  sustained  the  Governor— as  we  are 
sure  it  does  now.    So  much  for  what  is  "  usual"  in  this  line. 

Now  for  a  "  specification"— and  the  first  that  comes  to  hand 
will  serve  the  purpose: 

Gov.  Morgan,  in  his  Annual  Message,  recommended  the 
chartering  of  more  Horse  Railroads  in  our  city,  and  briefly  indi- 
cated the  main  objects  which  should  be  held  in  view  in  framing 
those  charters.  The  charters  were  framed  and  the  bills  passed ; 
but  the  stipulations  in  behalf  of  the  city  which  he  had  urged 

I  were  totally  disregarded.  The  leading  advocates  of  these  char- 
ters were  personally  apprized  by  him  that  the  charters  must  be 
modified  in  accordance  with  his  original  suggestions ;  but  his 
suggestions  were  still  defied,  and  the  bills  passed  in  the  teeth  of 

'  his  remonstrances.    He  could  of  course  do  no  otherwise  than 

I  veto  them  ;  so  he  did  it ;  and  here  is  the  Special  Message  stating 

I  his  reasons: 

St.\te  of  New-York,  Executive  Departjient,  > 
Albany,  April  IG,  18G0.  i 

'  To  the  Astemhly: 

!     I  return  to  the  Assembly,  in  which  they  originated,  the  foUow- 
ing  bills,  authorizing  the  construction  of  Railroads  iu  the  streets 
'  of  the  City  of  New-York: 


9 


"  An  act  to  authorizp  tlie  construction  of  a  Railroad  in  Avenue  : 
D,  East  Broadway,  and  oti.er  streets  and  avenues  of  the  City  of  ' 
New- York." 

"An  act  to  authorize  the  construction  of  a  Railroad  track  on 
South,  West,  and  other  streets  in  the  City  of  Nt-w-York." 

"  An  act  to  authorize  the  construction  of  a  Railroad  in  Seventh  j 
avenue,  and  in  certain  other  streets  and  avenues  of  the  City  of 
New -York." 

"  An  act  to  authorize  the  construction  of  a  Railroad  in  Tenth 
avenue,  Forty-second  street,  and  certain  other  avenues  and 
streets  of  the  City  of  New-York." 

"  An  act  to  authorize  tlie  construction  of  a  Railroad  in  Four-  i 
te£nth  street  and  other  streets  and  avenues  of  the  City  of  New-  , 
York."  1 

No  person  appreciates  more  fully  than  myself  the  utility  of 
railroads  as  a  medium  of  communication  between  distant  sec- 
tions of  a  great  city. 

In  the  conviction  that  greater  facilities  in  this  respect  were  ; 
required  in  New  York,  I  took  occasion,  in  my  annual  Message,  ] 
to  advert  to  this  necessity,  and  to  recommend  "  thit  the  number  ] 
"  of  railroads  iu  the  upper  part  of  the  city  be  increased  ;"  and  : 
took  occasion  in  this  connection  to  add:  '•  In  doing  this,  how- 
"  ever,  care  should  be  tafeen,  while  limiting  and  equalizing  the 
'•  rates  of  fare  on  all  railroads  in  that  city,  to  ri  nder  the  valuable 
"franchise  a  source  of  income  to  the  city."  It  was  obvious, 
therefore,  to  the  Legislature,  from  these  declarations,  that  all 
which  was  necessary  to  secure  my  approval  of  the  additional 
railroad  facilities  required  by  the  interests  of  the  citizens  of 
New-York  was,  that  tlie  grants  for  this  purpose  which  might  be 
made  should  impose  suitable  conditions,  iu  view  of  the  valuable 
franchises  granted,  should  guard  against  the  abuse  of  the  privil- 
eges conferred,  and  should  require  the  services  to  be  performed 
at  the  least  cost  to  the  public  consistent  with  the  obligations 
imposed.  It  is  because  the  bills  before  me  fail  to  embody  these 
essential  provisions,  and  are  deficient  iu  other  respects  of  those 
safeguards  which  I  deem  necessary  to  the  protection  of  the 
public  interests,  that  I  am  constrained  to  withhold  my  signature 
from  the  bills  herewith  returned.  That  the  privileges  propobed 
to  be  conferred  iu  tliese  acts  are  deemed  of  great  pecuniary 
value,  needs  no  other  elucidation  than  the  fact  that  responsible 
individuals  stand  ready  to  pay  a  large  bonus  icto  the  treasury  of 
the  City  of  New-York  for  the  franchises  conferred  upon  the 
persons  named  in  these  bills,  without  co>t  or  equivalent. 

I  deemed  some  return  to  the  city  simply  equitable,  because 
the  streets  have  been  opened,  graded,  and  rendered  ready  for  the 
reception  of  the  rails  proposed  to  be  laid  down,  at  the  expense  of 
tha  property -holders,  and  that  a  suitable  psyment  into  the  City 
Treasury  would  to  that  extent  alleviate  the  burden  of  taxation 
which  presses  so  heavily  upon  its  citizens.  Or,  if  this  method 
were  deemed  objectionable,  it  would  have  contented  me  had 
the  bill  in  question  so  reduced  the  fares  for  the  transportation  of 

Eassengers,  so  as  to  have  proved  a  veritable  benefit  to  the 
umbler  classes  of  citizens  who  are  driven  far  from  the  centers 
of  business  by  the  high  ren-.s  prevalent  in  the  more  accessible 
districts  of  the  city.  In  this  respect,  also,  the  bills  before  me 
fail  to  conform  to  the  intimations  contained  in  my  annual  mes- 
sage. While  it  is  notorious  that  the  profits  of  the  existing  rail- 
roads in  the  City  of  New-York  are  vastly  disproportioued  to  the 
amount  of  capital  actually  invested  the  roads  now  proposed  are 
allowed  to  conform  to  the  prices  for  the  transportation  of  passen- 
gers charged  by  those  already  in  operation,  without  any  other 
restriction  or  reduction. 

Again,  the  bills  to  which  I  am  constrained  to  interpose  my  ob- 
jections, are  giants  of  power  in  perpetuitj-.  Ordinary  prudence 
would  suggest  that  this  should  be  avoided.  Powers  that  are  use- 
ful to  da  j-,  under  the  changing  circumstances  of  communities, 
and  of  municipal  operations,  may  a  few  years  heuce,  become  ob- 
jectionable. Hence  it  is  that  the  exclusive  benefits  of  patents 
are  limited:  the  existence  of  corporations  circumscribed  within 
certain  periods;  lerry  franchises  defined -and  restricted.  The 
whole  genius  of  our  Government  requires,  that  privileges 
granted,  especially  those  of  pecuniary  value,  or  affecting  the 
public  convenience,  shall,  after  a  certain  time,  cease,  and  the 
power  of  revision  and  amendment  be  exercised  iu  accordance 
with  the  requirements  of  public  interest. 

But  the  privileges  conferred  in  these  acts,  authorizing  in  some 
cases  the  entire  engrossment  of  streets,  are  without  limitation : 
and  if,  at  any  future  time,  the  use  of  these  public  avenues  should 
be  demahded  for  other  purposes,  there  is  no  determinate  peiiod 
to  which  the  inhabitants  or  corporate  authorities  could  look  for 
a  cessation  of  the  privileges  now  granted.  Nor  is  there  any 
power  reserved  on  the  part  of  the  Legislature  to  alter,  modify, 
or  repeal  these  grants,  however  flagrant  shall  be  the  abuses 
which  may  grow  up  under  them. 

It  is  perfectly  evident  that  the  Governor  is  no 
lawyer,  or  be  -would  have  never  made  that  remark. 

Nor  is  there  any  provision  in  these  bills  piescribing  a  time 
within  which  the  proposed  railroads  shall  be  constructed. 


of  the  distance  to  which  a  car.  whf  n  started,  shall  prooepd.  Rnn- 
nin2  in  zigzag  directions,  it  is  iu  the  power  of  the  several  com- 
panies to  break  their  connections  at  siiort  intervals  ;  and  thus,  in- 
stead of  cirryii  g  a  passenger  the  u  hole  distance  he  may  wish  to 
proceed,  compel  him  to  pay  two  or  more  fares  befare  reaching 
the  desired  pomt. 

An  objection  more  flagrant  than  any  in  which  I  have  adverted, 
is  the  utter  want  of  responsibility  which  pertaiLs  to  these  asso- 
ciations. They  are  not  required  to  file  s.ny  articles  of  a.»sociation, 
and  within  a  month  after  organization  the  public  may  be  entirely 
at  a  loss  to  know  who  are  the  parties  in  interest.  Being  withouw 
a  corporate  name  and  without  corporate  responsibility' prosecu- 
tions could  only  be  nr.aintained  against  individuals  and  these, 
with  no  accessible  public  record  to  exhibit  either  their  namesj 
residence,  or  interests,  might  prove  altogether  intangible.  And, 
as  if  his  immunity  were  not  sutficient,  the  bills  before  me,  vio- 
lating all  just  precedent  provide  that  suits  for  damage  or  demand 
be  brought  exclusively  in  the  Courts  of  the  First  J  udicial  Dis- 
trict. 

The  Governor  bad  not  read  the  bill  or  he  -would  not 
have  said  that  nor  bad  he  read  the  Constitution  either. 
He  has  not  fjuoted  the  bill  correctly;  nor  does  he  state 
the  ettect  of  it  properly : 

Thus  while  the  persons  upon  whom  these  privileges  are  con- 
ferred in  these  acts  are  residents  of  vaiious  sections  of  the  State, 
litigants  are  compelled  to  resort  for  redress  to  the  City  of  New- 
York,  no  matter  what  may  be  the  circumstances  ot  the  case,  or 
how  onerous  the  burden  thus  injposed.  That  this  is  a  flagrant 
departure  from  the  principles  and  practice  which  govern  ordi- 
nary legal  controversies  cannot  be  questioned. 

I  have  thus  briefly  stated  my  objections  to  these  meaures, 
drawn  froni  the  inherent  defects  maiji.est  in  the  bills  themselvesw 
They  are  in  my  judgUient  of  so  grave  a  character,  and  so  clearly 
calculated  to  destroy  the  utility  ol  the  measures  proposed  that 
I  cannot  consent  to  become  a  part5- to  their  enactment.  Sin- 
cerely do  1  deprecate  the  w  ant  of  additional  railroad  facilities  in 
the  city,  with  whose  interest,  social,  civil  and  commercial  I 
have  long  been  connected.  But  I  cannot  consent  to  the  sacrifice 
of  permanent  interests  lor  temporary  advantages.  The  measures 
thus_  objected  to  are.  iu  their  present  shape,  at  variance  with 
justice  and  sound  policy ;  not  in  consonance  w  ith  tte  wishes, 
or  the  wants  of  the  great  mass  of  those  for  whose  benefit  they 
are  professedly  designed,  and  being  deficient  in  those  legislative 
safeguards  which  should  mark  wise  and  discrimiitKiiiiglesislation, 
my  omy  alternative  lies  in  the  exercise  of  my  comtitutional 
prero;:ative,  and  I  tlieiefore  return  them  severally  without  my 
signature.  E.  D.  .MORGAN. 

We  have  not  a  word  to  add.  The  man  of  decent  understand- 
ing who  reads  this  ^lessage  understands  the  whole  case— he 
cannot  but  understand  it.  There  is  no  question  as  to  char- 
tering the  Roads— the  only  question  is  "  Shall  they  be  chartered 
in  the  interest  (primarily)  of  the  community  ?  or  solely  in  the 
interest  of  the  corporators?"  That  question  the  Legislature 
proceeded  to  answer  by  passing  the  bill  over  the  Governor's  veto 
by  the  following  vote:  . 

[Here  folio-sv  the  name  of  all  those  -who  voted  on  the 
Bill.] 

— There  were  four  or  five  other  bills  so  passed,  vetoed,  and  re- 
passed over  the  vetoes,  involving  similar  questions  and  interests, 
and  passed  by  nearly  the  same  votes  [for  which  see  Daily 
Tribune  of  August  7].  It  is  imnecessary  here  to  recapitulate 
them.    The  above  is  a  fair  sample  of  the  whole. 

Now,  it  is  possible  that  there  weie  simp".etons  in  the  Senate  or 
Assembly  who  voted  Yea  above  because  they  knew  no  better: 
and  such  should  be  kept  carefully  away  from  such  dangerous 
spots  as  Albany  ever  more.    Their  naturally  anxious  mothers 
should  never  allow  them  to  go  out  without  sending  some  one 
along  to  tell  them  and  show  them  how  to  come  in  when  it  rains. 
But  the  great  body  of  the  Yeas  in  the  aboTe  and  on  similar  div- 
]  sions  were  bought— simply,  nakedly  bought  and  paid  for  with 
'  cash  in  hand,  or  the  promise  of  profitable  interests  in  the  cor- 
'  porations  thus  chartered;  and  a  good  many  of  them  have  been 
i  down  here  since  the  adjournment,  looking  sharply  after  their 
I  pay.    Others,  more  circumspect,  have  only  sent.   The  whole 
I  matter  is  just  as  notorious  in  well-inf«.'rujed  circles  as  the  negotia- 


Nor  is  he  a  Constitutional  la-^\'yer  or  he  would  never  i         f*"^  "  Fusion"  between  the  Bell,  Dough  s,  and  Breckinridge 


have  made  that  remark. 

Secure  in  the  privileges  conferred,  the  parties  in  interest  may 
delay  action  to  such  time  as  their  own  couvenience  shall  be  best 
subserved.  In  the  mean  time  the  imnmnities  granted  may  be 
the  subject  of  constant  barter  and  sale,  without  the  slightest  ac- 
criiing  advantage  to  the  public.  Equally  deficient  are  they  in  re- 
quirements as  to  the  time  and  manner  in  which  the  cars  shall  run, 


factions. 

The  People  will  do  just  as  they  see  fit  about  re-electing  or 
otherwise  honoring  the  men  who  voted  to  override  the  Gov- 
ernor's Vetoes  as  aforesaid.  Our  duty  in  the  premises  is  doae 
when  we  say  that  if  any  one  of  these  unfaithful  legislators,  no 
matter  of  what  party,  shall  be  re-elected  or  otherwise  white- 


10 


washed  '•  y  a  popwlar  vote,  it  wiil  be  done  without  our  aid  and 
agaiust  our  most  earnest  remonstrance.   And  here  we  rest. 

Mr.  Marsli  then  otlisred  in  evidence  a  copy  of  The 
TKir.i  NE  dHted  O.-t.  23,  1860. 

Mr.  Porter  objected,  ou  the  s.ime  ground  as  before, 
for  defendant. 

Objection  overruled.    Exception  for  defendant. 

Mv.  Porter — I  must  insist  that  the  oeutleman  read 
"svithout  interiKlariug.  lie  read  tiie  Governor's  Mes- 
saMe  that  -we  could  scarcely  tell  wbic'i  was  the  Gov- 
eruor  t*  an  J  whii  h  t  \'.e  coiint^tl. 

Mr.  Marsh— Wei!,  it  I  .  id  not  speak  better  Uw  Hian 
the  Govcruor  did,  I  sL.oi.Ll  be  asban^ed  to  belong  to  the 
bar. 

The  Court  suggested  that  the  counsel  better  confine 
Liniself  stri.  ily  to  the  reading. 

Mr.  Marab  then  proceeded  to  read,  as  follovs^s: 


it,  shall  at  all  t'm  -i  be  frf.e"'y  upheld  in  thi» 


MR.  D.  C.  LTTLEJOIIN— THE  TIMES — GOV. 

ARD. 

\  OSWEGO  COUNTY. 


!EW- 


roLiTics 

CorrespoLdeUce  of  the  N.  Y.  Tiiues. 

(  )s\vK(,o,  Saturday,  Oct.  20,  1860. 

The  Uepal  i"  M:..rrin  .iilv  -viLle-av.  aive  in  thi.s  section  o  f 

•the  S^are.       -  '   ■    ii  g  Im^letn  execited  by  the  de 

cree  issued  ,  '  ■  .  ;>uf  city,  that  Speaker  Littlejohn 

must  not  t  e  -        .-r.ioe  Assembly.   'J  his  impertineiice 

iu  local  aft tii  -  ri  th  u  a.-,  an  i;iterfere.iice,  end  the  leasou  given 
for  it  is  leg&rued  a>  a;,  i.^sult.  There  is  no  n  an  in  this  ci'imini- 
iiity  who  e> ys  a  l.juhtf  ihararte'  I'or  peisonal  integrlGy  than 
Mr.  Litclejr-iiu'  ana  t  .i,^  cb-a'g-  uf  corruption  thai  Mr.  Greeley  has 
made  a^iai:  si  1;  ui  i-  ne:i;(rd  vvi:h  c  U'eioit 

Tiieie  wts  a  vt^iy  lar-e  me^tiu;!  of  the  Re]  ublicans  held  here 
last  i.iglit.  at  hich.  ai'tdi- a  speech  of  ail  hour  ai.d  a  half  on  Na- 
tional politics,  by  Ex-Lieut. -Gov.  H.  J  Rayojond,  of  your  city, 
Mr.  Litilejohu  discussed  the  State  le^iislation  ot  last  "\Muter,  aud 
e3peciariy  th-'  New-York  railroad  bills  and  other  measures  to 
•which  exception  had  been  taken.  He  handled  Mr.  Greeley 
without  gloves — brar.dii  g  him  as  a  calu  ULiator,  and  as  stabbing 
private  caaracter  for  the  sake  of  attaining  poliiical  purposes  ol 
bis  own.  He  ;--serted  in  i he  broadest  and  uiost  emphatic  man- 
ner, tha;  h'^  li-d  ce^er  profited,  nor  expected  to  probt,  to  the  ex- 
tent of  a  :a;t])  .r.j,  from  any  action  he  tver  took  as  a  legislator 
wpon  any  public  'luestion  whitever,  and  challenged  contradiction 
from  any  quarter. 

Mr.  Brown,  the  vigorous  and  independent  editor  of  The  Oswe- 
go Times,  has  written  a  letter  to  Mr.  Greelej^,  handling  the  phi- 
lojopher  very  much  as  he  handles  other  people  The  public 
feeling  heie'is  very  decided  and  bitter  against  Mr.  Greeley's 
course. 

The  Republican  ma.ioritj'  iu  this  county  will  be  larger  than 
ever  before.  Nubndy  here,  of  any  party,  looks  for  le.-s  than  S'l,- 
000  Lincoln  majoritv  in  the  State.  The  Fusion  has  hurt  the  op- 
position very  seriously  all  through  this  section.  Liitlejohn  will 
be  re  elected  by  not  less  than  1,000  majoritj'.  ' 

POLmCS    IN    CENTRAL    NEW-YORK — ONONDAGA 
COUNTY. 

Correspondence  of  The  N.  Y.  Times. 

SvKACrsE,  Saturday,  Oct.  20,  I860. 
The  political  c  anvass  is  very  vigurou8l  \  conducted  in  this  county. 
The  Republicans  have  the  advantage  very  deciuedly  oVer  their 
■opponents  m  oi  gauization,  in  union,  and  in  ei  thusiasui.  TLei- 
meetings  are  freijr.ei.t  and  large,  aijd  ij.dicate  unuiistakably  the  | 
popularity  of  their  cause.    This  is  one  of  the  most  decidedly  [ 
Anti-Slavery-  counties  in  the  State,  yet  tlie  feeling  of  the  Repub- 
licans ia  decidedly  con.'^ervaii".  e,  and  no  one  expects  or  desi  es  at 
Mr.  Lincoln's  hands  any  intcrleience  with  Slavery  or  wiih  the 
constitutional  :i.hts  ot  "the  Slave  States.    The  threats  of  disunion 
produce  not  the  slightest  etFeci  upon  an}  bod}'. 

Mr.  Yanc3  spoke  Heie  a  few  evenings  since  to  a  large  audierce, 
made  up  of  men  of  all  parties.  He  was  exceedingly  guarded  in 
his  remarks,  aiming  to  show  that  the  North  would  leap  cn  st 
profit  from  adow  ing  Slavery  to  extend  and  increase.  Personally 
he  produced  a  favorable  impression  ;  but  the  political  etiect  of 
his  speecii  v,ili  bt#  to  swell  the  Republican  vote. 

Mr.  Greeley  has  been  in  the  county  making  Lincoln  speeches. 
The  principal  object  of  his  visit,  however,  seems  to  have  been  to 
look  after  the  Re"publicau  IMeuibers  of  Assembly,  iu  whose  pref- 
erences for  United  States  Senator  he  takes  a  very  marked  and  pe- 
culiar interest.  .He  made  no  speech  iu  this  place,  but  held  a  se- 
cret conference  yesterday  with  some  ten  or  fifteen  Republicans 
who  are  hostile  to  the  re-election  of  Mr.  Seward  and  are  endeav- 
oring to  defeat  the  RepubUoan  candidate  for  the  Assembly.  The 
corruptions  of  last  A\  inter's  Legislature  afford  the  ostensible 
ground  for  this  hostility.  This  county  will  give  a  much  larger 
Republican  majority  than  ever  before. 

The  foregoing  bulletins  appeir  conspicuously  in  yesterday's 
Times.  In  so  far  as  they  indicate  the  perfect  affiliation  of  its 
editor  with  the  Littlejohu  and  Myers  school  of  politicians,  they 
require  no  remark.   Every  mau's  right  to  choose  his  own  com- 


pany and  keep 
journah 

I\Ir.  Littlejohn's  "  handlmg  Mr.  Greeley  without  gloves," 
"  bianding  him  as  a  ca^umnitor,  and  as  stabbing  private  charac- 
ter for  the  sake  of  attaining  political  purposes  of  his  own,"  &c., 
is  all  in  the  way  tf  business.  I  have  a.  "  political  purpose  "  to 
subseive in  the  premises  ;  and  that  is  to  purify  the"  legislation  of 
our  State  fr</ni  iuiluences  and  operations  which  have  rendered  it 
a  ten  01  to  tax-payers,  and  a  stench  iu  the  nostrils  of  honest  men. 
tielieving  this  sort  of  legislation  to  be  every  way  wrong  and 
ruinous,  I  mean  to  expel  it  from  the  St,  t^,  or  at  all  events  from 
tne  Republ'can  party.  If  the  Democrats  see  fit,  as  they  have 
done  in  Saiatoga  County,  not  only  to  renoujinate  their  own  cor- 
ruptionists,  but  to  take  up  and  try  to  reelect  those  whom  popular 
indignation  at  their  misdeeds  has  driven  from  ourpartj-,  I  believe 
it  wiJ  be  the  worse  for  them.  At  ail  even's,  I  shall  do  what  ap- 
pears to  be  cle.irly  right,  •■  in  the  faith  that  I{i;:ht  makes  Might.'' 

is  it  not  beautifully  cool,  this  talk  of  my  opposition  to  the  re- 
election i.f  the  tocds  of  the  City  Railroad  jobbers  as  "  impei- 
tinei-ce  in  loeal  affairs'?"  When  Mr.  L'ittlejohn  descended  from 
the  Speaker's  Chair  la;t  Winter  to  urge  the  Assembly  to  over- 
ride a  New  Y^ork  City  Governor's  veto  of  five  bills  proposing  to 
gridiron  the  streets  of  this  Cit}-  for  the  benefit  of  jobbers  scatter- 
ed all  over  the  State,  was  not  that  "  an  ii.terference''  in  "  local 
affairs?"  Did  he  not  know  that  our  Municipal  authorities  and 
our  Tress  all  but  unanimously  protested  agaicst  the  passing  o 
those  bills  in  the  shape  objected  to  by  Gov.  IMorgan ?  ^' Local, 
affairs,"  eh  ?  Does  not  Mr.  Littlejohn  know  that  it  is  the  gena  al 
scope  and  infiuence  of  such  legislation  as  that  we  are  now  con- 
sidering—with  the  fact  that  the  Republican  party  is  implicated  in 
and  damaged  by  it— that  has  precluded  the  running  again  of  nearly 
all  his  CO  adjutors  in  the  objectionable  legi.dation  of  last  Winter, 
and  w  ill  defeat  a  good  portion  of  those  who  have  engineered  a  re- 
nomination  ? 

But  we  are  told  that  "  there  is  no  man  in  this  community  [Os- 
wego] who  enjoys  a  higher  character  for  personal  integrity  than 
Mr.  Littlejohn."  Every  community  of  course  erects  and  gradu- 
ates iis  own  standards  of  integrity,  and  there  is  no  objection,  so 
long  as  it  does  not  attempt  to  thrust  them  on  other  people.  When 
I  was  in  Chicago  

Mr.  Marsh— I  am  reading  the  wrong  paper !  This  is 
an  article  on  wnich  we  have  another  libel  suit  pending. 

Mr.  Porter  insisted  that  the  whole  article  should  be 
read. 

Mr.  Marsh  declined;  the  gentleman  might  read  it,  if 
he  chose  to  put  it  iu  evidence.  I  will  withdraw  it  en- 
tirely. 

The  Court  decided  it  might  be  withdrawn. 

Exception  taken  for  defendant,  ou  the  ground  that 
the  pbiiniilf  had  no  right  to  withdraw  a  paper  thus  par- 
tially read. 

Piaintirl  rested.  Adjourned. 

Tuesday,  Sept.  10. 
OPENING  FOR   THE  DEFENSE. 
Mr.  Williams  said:   If  your  Honor  please,  the 
plaintitt' having  ofiered  no  proof  to  take  this  case  out  of 
the  doctrine  of  a  privileged  communication,  we  insist 
ihtit  a  ctiuae  of  action  is  not  made  out  on  the  part  of 
I  the  plaintift'.     I  understood  the  coursel  on  the  other 
1  side  to  put  their  claim  to  open  the  case  upon  the  au- 
I  tbority  of  the  case  of  Fry  and  Bennett,  which  was  to 
i  the  eftect  that  where  the  plaintiff  must  give  affirmative 
proof  of  malice,  he  is  entitled  to  the  opening.   To  that 
we  accede,  as  a  proposition.    The  plaintitt'  took  the 
case,  as  we  supposed,  to  give  proof  of  malice.   We  in- 
sist he  has  given  no  such  proof  thus  far— we  therefore 
move  that  the  complaint  be  dismissed.    We  also  move 
that  the  complaint  be  dismissed  upon  the  additional 
ground,  that  upon  the  face  of  the  article  itself,  it  is  by 


11 


law  a  piivilepecl  communication,  and  therefore  not  j 
libelous.  And  we  also  insist,  that  upon  a  fair  con-  ! 
struction  of  the  word^  of  the  publication,  it  contains  ; 
}io  libelous  charge  ag  liast  the  plaiaiiff  personally,  but 
is  onlv  a  fair  criticism  upon  the  public  acts^  of  the  ' 
plaintiff.  We  say  it  is  a  privileged  communication,  ! 
and  then  we  say,  whether  privileged  or  not,  there  is  ' 
no  charye  contained  in  the  words  used  that  id  libel- 
ous of  itself. 

The   Couut — I  will  rule  first  that  it  is  not  a 
privileged  cornniunication,  and  second  that  the  terms 
of  the  publication  do  import  a  hbelous  charge  jier-  , 
sonally  upon  the  plaintilf,  au  i,  therefore,  it  is  libel- 
ous as  to  hitti.  ' 

Exception  taken  for  defendant  to  each  of  these 
propositions.  I 

Court  adjourned  to  Wednesday.  1 

Wednesday,  Sept  11,  1861.  | 
MR.  WILLIAMS'S  OPENING   FOR  DEFENSE.  ! 

Mr.  Williams,  in  opening  for  the  defense,  said:  ; 
May  it  please  the  Court,  gentlemen  of  the  jury;  it  now 
becomes  my  duty  on  the  part  of  the  defendant  to  state 
to  you  the  nature  and  character  of  the  defense,  and 
the  substance  of  what  we  expect  to  prove,  and 
60  to  state  it  that  you  may  be  able  if  pussil)le 
(as  the  testimony  goes  on,  step  by  step)  to  apply 
it  to  the  case  yourselves,  tmd  to  fully  appreciate 
its  bearing.  It  is  imdou1)tedly  the  duty  of  the 
counsel  wlA  sums  up  the  case,  to  explain  the 
bearing  of  the  testimony  upon  the  various  points  of 
the  case.  It  is,  however,  well  enough  for  the  coun- 
sel in  opening  to  endeavor  to  relieve  this  duty  as 
much  as  possible;  and  it  condaces  to  a  better  under- 
standing of  the  tet-timony,  especially  if  it  be  of  an 
intricate  and  circumstantial  character,  fully  to  explain 
it  so  that  the  j  ury  may  comprehend  it  and  apply  it  to 
the  case  as  the  testimony  proceeds. 

You  have  heard,  gentlemen,  from  the  counsel  for  the 
plaintiff  something  of  the  nature  of  the  case;  he  has 
told  you  that  it  was  an  action  for  libel,  brought  by 
Mr,  Littlejohn,  a  member  of  the  House  of  Represent-  | 
atives  of  this  State  and  the  Speaker  of  that  House, 
against  Mr.  Horace  Greeley  of  the  County  of  West- 
chester, one  of  the  editors  of  The  TribUxXE  newspa- 
per, for  an  article  that  appeared  in  that  newspaper  on 
the  26th  of  September  last.    Mr.  Littlejohn,  he  told 
you,  at  that  time  was  a  candidate  for  reelection  to 
the  Assembly  from  the  1st  Assembly  District  of  Os-  ; 
wego  County.    And  while  he  was  so  a  candidate,  he  \ 
has  told  you,  that  Mr.  Littlejohn  was  bitterly  and  vio-  \ 
lently  assailed  in  his  personal  character  by  an  article  j 
published  in  The  Tribune.  "  i 

The  counsel  commented  upon  it  at  some  length  and  ' 
they  have  given  some  evidence  wliich  I  suppose  will  ' 
be  claimed  to  be  evidence  of  malice  on  the  part  of  Mr. 
Greeley  in  the  publication  of  the  article  complained  of.  i 
The  learned  counsel  spent  a  few  moments  of  his  time  in 
speaking  of  his  client.  With  the  private  character  of  his  ' 
Client,  gen'lemen  I  beg  leave  to  say  here  in  the  outset, 
in  my  judgment  we  have  nothing  to  do — we  have  noth- 
ing to  do  whatever  with  the  private  character  of  Mr.  I 
Littlejohn.  That  has  not  been  assailed  in  The  Tuiijune 
newspaper  in  any  way  or  in  any  form  as  I  understand 
the  meaning  of  the  article  complained  of.  Whatever 
of  good  name  Mr.  Littlejohn  may  have  as  to  his  private  ! 
character  as  a  citizen  in  your  midst  we  are  here  with- 
out any  motive  to  assail  it — we  don't  propose  to  assail 
it.    Whatever  may  be  his  domestic  virtues,  however 
strongly  may  be  attached  to  him  his  personal  friends 
and  followers,  we  have  not  one  word  to  say  of  that. 
We  would  not  abate  the  tithe  of  a  hair  from  any  good 
name  he  may  have  won  in  this  community  by  private  and 
domestic  virtues.    The  learned  counsel  al^o  commented 
in  his  opening  upon  the  character  of  the  defendant.    I  ^ 
thought  the  gentleman  went  aside  a  little — I  think  a  i 
little  unprofessionally  aside — to  say  something  deroga- 
tory of  the  defendant,    lie  spoke  of  bis  being  a  lobby 


member  of  the  Legislature  and  of  his  having  received 
a  bribe  while  a  meriiber  of  Congress. 

]\Ir.  Marsh — I  did  not  say  he  received  a  bribe;  I 
said  he  was  cliarged  with  it. 

Mr.  Wir,MA.M.s — I  thought  it  a  little  unprofessional, 
because  Mr.  Greeley's  cliaracter  is  not  on  trial  here. 
The  learned  couns'el  told  you  that  Mr.  Littl^-john's 
character  was  on  trial  here.  He  certainly  will  not 
pretend  tliat  Mr.  Greeley's  is.  If  he  expect  to  get  a 
verdi^-t  for  damages,  his  damages  look  in  some  sense  to 
an  indemnify  for  what  he  has  suifered.  You  know  that 
if  a  man  without  character  traduces  you,  it  does  you  but 
little  harm;  if  a  man  who  takes  bribes  lit»e's  you,  it  is 
comparatively  harmless;  but  if  a  man,  lofty  in  char- 
acter, and  pure  in  motives,  assails  you,  it'  does  you 
more  harm. 

It  was  scarcely  in  the  way  of  the  counsel,  yet  I  do 
not  complain  of  it  if  the  counsel  thought  it  his  duty; 
but  I  am  not  liere  to  vindicate  Horace  Greel»-y,  nor 
apnlogize  lor  or  palliate  any  act  of  his  life.  He  needs 
no  apology,  no  iialliation,  no  vindication,  from  me  or 
from  any  other  living  man !  That  I  feel,  and  I  leave 
it  there.  It  is  not  unprofessional,  gentlemen,  for  coun- 
sel to  assail  the  character  of  their  antag<miits  when  it 
become  a  part  of  their  case,  or  when  it  becomes  in  any 
view  important  they  should  do  so.  You  know  that 
we  liwyers.  when  we  get  up  before  a  Jury,  are 
privilcLjed  men.  I  can  say  things  abwit  Mr.  Little- 
john, for  instance,  here  before  you,  and,  if  pertinent  to 
the  case,  the  law  will  protect  me,  which,  if  I  said  in 
the  street,  I  might  be  lirfble  to  an  aciion  for  damages 
— perhaps  to  impiisonment — for  saying.  I  do  not 
comulaia  that  character  should  be  assailed  when  it  is 
necessary  to  do  so;  but  when  it  is  not  in  any  sense 
necessary  I  have  observed  that  the  better  part  of  the 
profession  avoid  it,  and  I  have  thought  it  light  to  say 
thus  much  to  you,  because  there  is  always  something 
due  to  decorum  which  may  not  safely  be  withheld. 

The  learned  counsel  told  you,  gentlemen,  that,  when 
Mr.  Littlejohn  was  a  candidate  for  election  to  the 
Assembly  from  the  First  Assembly  District  in  Oswego 
County,  an  article  appeared  in  The  Tribune  newspa- 
per, which  charged  him  with  corruption  as  a  legis- 
lator.  The  words  were  these : 

"  A  correspondent  earaestly  inquirps  our  opinioii  concerning 
the  nomination  for  members  of  the  Legislature  of  I).  C.  Little- 
john at  Oswego,  and  of  Austin  Myers  at  rfyrai.-use.  On  tliis  sub- 
ject our  opinion  has  been  so  oft'^u  expressed  that  it  caimot  be  in 
doubt.  Both  these  persons  were  prominent  in  the  corrupt  legis- 
lation of  last  Winter.  According!}-,  both  of  them  ought  now  to 
be  defeated.  Or,  if  they  must  be  sent  back  to  pursue  their 
career  at  Albany,  it  should  not  be  the  work  of  Republican 
voters." 

That  IS  the  whole  ot  the  article  !  It  is  for  publish- 
ing that  article,  or  for  its  being  published  in  The 
Tribune  newspaper,  that  we  are^  here  to-day.  Gen- 
tlemen, it  will  be  a  part  of  our  case  undoubtedly,  un- 
der the  ruling  of  the  learned  J udge,  to  show  that  Mr. 
Greeley  had  no  malice  against  Mr.  Littlejohn.  I  do  not 
tliink  ibe  article  on  its  face  im{)]ies  malice.  As  I  un- 
derstand it,  Gentlemen,  Mr.  Littlejohn  and  Mr.  Greeley 
had  known  each  other  for  several  years— pertiaps  for 
many  years.  There  had  never  been,  so  far  as  I  am 
informed,  the  blightest  misunderstanding  between 
these  gentlemen — not  the  slightest  fceiiu^  whatever  of 
any  character  unkind  or  unpleasant  in  its  nature.  I 
don't  think  that  it  will  be  pretended  that  up  to 
the  publication  of  this  article,  anything  ever  appeared 
in  The  Tribune  newspaper,  *  or  fell  from  Mr. 
Greeley's  lips,  in  the  least  degree  unkind  toward  Mr. 
Littlejohn.  He  had  no  malice."  But  he  tells  you  on  the 
face  of  this  paper,  what  he  did  think ;  and  he  tells  you 
more  emphatically  in  the  article  which  the  learned  coun- 
sel read  in  evidence — more  emphatically,  all  the  reasons 
why  he  published  this  article,and  why  he  was  opposed  to 
the  election  of  Mr.  Littlejohn.  He  says,  "on  this  subject, 
our  opinion  has  been  so  often  expressed,  that  it  cannot 
be  in  doubt."  How  expressed  ?  The  plaintiff  s  coun- 
sel read  to  you  last  night  from  The  Tribune  the 


12 


expressions  bere  referred  to.  It  had  been  expressed 
by  saying  through  the  columns  of  that  journal  that 
there  were  measurep,  acts,  laws,  passed  by  the  Legis- 
lature of  1860,  that  were  corrupt,  and  no  man  wlio 
voted  for  them  ought  to  be  returned  to  the  Legit^la- 
ture  again:  and  he  printed  the  names  of  every  man 
voting  Tiro  and  con — Democrats  and  Republicans — 
without  the  slightest  shadow  of  a  distinction  of  party, 
or  fiivor  of  pert-on,  from  beginning  to  end;  and  he 
said  that  none  of  tliese  men  ought  ever  to  be  returnrd 
to  the  Legislature.  And  when  he  is  inquired  of 
again  by  the  correspondent,  he  says:  "  Our  opinion 
on  this  subject,"  that  is,  our  opinion  on  the  subject  of 
returing  any  of  the  members  who  voted  for  the  corrupt 
measures  of  last  Winter,  "  has  been  expressed,"  and 
they  read  to  you  last  night  the  expression  of  it  referred 
to.  And,  in  the  light  of  this,  you  see  the  motive,  and 
the  whole  motive,  that  actuated  the  publication  of  this 
article.  Mr.  Greeley  did  believe,  and  he  believed  it 
in  common  with  almost  every  intelligent  citizen  of  the 
State  of  New-York,  that  the  measures  in  question  were 
passed  by  corrupt  and  corrupting  influences,  which 
made  it  corrupt  legislation.  He  believed  that!  And 
he  thought  that  the  purity  of  the  Legislative  body  was 
a  consideration  higher  and  more  important  than  party 
success,  and  therefore  he  said,  all  the  men,  of  what- 
ever party,  who  voted  for  these  measures,  ought  not 
again  to  be  returned  to  the  Legislature.  He  came 
to  believe  this  as  other  men  came  to  believe  it — as, 
perhaps,  some  of  you,  as  hundreds  within  the  hearing 
of  my  voice,  came  to  believe  it.  Was  Mr.  Greeley  at 
Albany  durmg  the  session  ol  that  Legislature  ?  Not 
an  hour.  Was  he  present  when  any  of  the  corrupt  in- 
fluences were  brought  to  bear  upon  any  member  of  the 
Legislature  ?  Why,  if  they  had  been  going  to  do  any- 
thing of  that  kind,  Horace  Greeley  is  the  last  man  on 
the  face  of  this  round  globe  that  would  have  been  in- 
vited to  the  interview  !  How  did  he  come  to  believe 
this?  Just  as  other  men  came  to  believe  it — from  the  | 
almost  universal  expression  of  opinion ;  from  the  unan-  ^ 
imous  voice,  as  well  of  individuals  as  of  the  public 
press;  by  the  voice  of  the  Governor,  through  his  veto 
message;  from  the  voice  of  Greene  C.  Bronson,  , 
speaking  in  the  W^est  Washington  Market  case; 
from  the  voice  of  John  McKeon,  speaking  in  the  : 
eame  case;  from  the  voice  of  Wm.  Curtis  Noyes, 
speaking  in  the  same  case — all  good  men  and  true. 
Could  Horace  Greeley^  doubt  it  ?  Read  for  yourselves 
but  one-tenth  part  of  the  bundle  of  scraps  cut  from 
ditferent  newspapers  of  ail  parties  from  one  end  of  the 
State  to  the  other,  which  I  now  hold  in  my  hand,  and  j 
could  you  doubt  it  ?  It  is  an  old  saying  that  "  what  ! 
everybody  says  must  be  true,"  and  there  is  much  good 
sense  in  the  a'dage. 

Gentlemen,  you  were  told  in  the  opening  that  The 
Tribune  newspaper  was  the  only  paper  that  com- 
plained of  this — that  The  Tribune  alone  assailed  Mr. 
Littlejohn,  and  that  it  was  vindictive  in  its  tone  and 
in  its  spirit.  They  have  given  you  all  the  evidence 
they  are  at  liberty  now  to  give;  all  the  evidence  they 
have  got,  or  could  get,  tending  to  show  that  IMr.  Greeley 
was  actuated  by  vindictive  or  malicious  moiives.  But 
whether  or  not  Mr.  Greeley  was  actuated  bv  malicious 
motives,  I  assert,  and  will  prove  if  it  is  dispiited,  that  it 
was,  and  has  been,  the  universal  voice  of  the  press  of 
the  State  of  New- York  from  the  day  these  measures 
were  passed,  find  the  fact  was  known  to  t!ie  community 
that  they  had  passed ;  up  to  this  very  hour  it  was,  and 
is,  the  universal  voice  of  the  press  of  the  State  of  New- 
Y^ork  that  the  measures  in  question  were  corrupt,  that 
the  acts  were  disgraceful,  that  the  legislators  were 
corrupt  men,  disgraceful  to  themselves,  disgraceful  to 
the  State,  a  hissing  and  a  by- word  among  men,  and 
to  go  down  forever  as  a  hissing  and  a  by -word.  If 
Mr.  Greeley  or  The  Tribune  fell  into  an  error  on  this 
point,  it  was  the  common  error  of  the  press  every- 
where. Gentlemen,  the  press  has  some  "duties  and 
some  rights.   When  you  take  up  a  newspaper,  or  go  to 


buy  a  newspaper  for  two,  three,  or  five  cents,  as  the 
case  may  be,  and  there  are  two  newspapers  at  the  hame 
stall,  you  take  that  which  has  the  most  news  in  ir.  By 
that  very  act  you  approve  of  putting  all  the  news  into 
the  newspaper  that  can  be  found.  You  want  that  news- 
paper that  tells  you  the  most  news.  If  a  man  is  lit  for 
his  place  as  a  newspaper  editor,  he  is  a  man  who  ob- 
tains all  the  news  he  can — all  the  information,  and  all 
the  instruction  for  the  people  that  he  is  able  to  obtain; 
for  these  newspapers  are  in  some  sense  our  schoolmas- 
ters in  this  Republican  country,  to  bring  us  to  the 
knowledge  of  what  it  is  im})ortant  for  us  to  know,  in 
order  to  preserve  our  Government  and  retain  our  liber- 
ties. I  say  a  man  who  assumes  these  functions,  has  a 
duty  to  perform.  You  know,  gentlemen,  that  a  com- 
mon carrier  has  a  duty  to  perform  to  the  public.  If  you 
take  an  article  to  the  "common  carrier  who  plies  his  call- 
ing upon  the  Lakes  or  elsewhere,  and  he  refuses  to 
carry  it,  you  sue  him  for  it,  and  compel  him  to  take  it, 
if  it  be  within  bis  capacity  to  do  so;  because  the  law 
recognizes  his  calling,  and  makes  it  his  duty,  as  far  as 
possible,  to  exercise  that  calling  for  the  best  interests 
of  the  public.  So  it  is  with  a  tavern-keeper,  and  a 
score  of  other  callings  which  I  might  name.  And  this 
is  true  of  a  newspaper  editor.  He  ought  to  tell  you  the 
news,  and  let  you  know  what  is  going  on.  He  ought 
to  enlighten  you;  if  the  foe  lurks  in  ambush,  let 
him  tell  us  of  it,  and  we  will  be  on  our  guard. 
If  the  foe  to  our  liberties,  our  rights,  j^our  interests, 
lies  in  wait  for  us,  let  the  newspaper  tell  us  of  it.  If 
the  foe  is  approaching,  give  the  alarm.  Don't  stop  to 
get  absolute  proof  of  it,  or  he  is  upon  us  before  we 
can  guard  the  gate.  The  editor  should  inform,  ac- 
cording to  the  best  of  his  knowledge  and  belief,  con- 
cerning the  subject.  The  community  needs  often  to  be 
roused,  and  to  be  told  of  the  stealthy  approach  of  the 
enemy,  the  suspected  approach  of  the  enemy,  if  you 
please.  That  is  the  duty  of  the  newspaper  editor.  He 
is  bound  to  do  so  if  a  true  man  and  a  lover  of  his 
country  and  his  fellow-men;  and  he  will  do  it,  though 
he  be  called  into  court  to  answer  for  libels  never  so 
often.  If  he  has  a  duty  to  the  public,  paramount  to 
his  duty  to  himself,  he  will,  if  he  is  a  true  man,  sacri- 
fice self-interest  for  the  public  good.  If  these  meas- 
ures were  corrupt  the  people  ought  to  know  it,  and 
ought  to  be  guarded  against  them  and  the  repitition  of 
acts  of  similar  corruption.  Gentlemen,  there  was  an 
in(|uiry  made  by  a  correspondent  of  The  Tribune, 
desiriiig  to  know  whether  that  journal  would  support 
for  re-electioa  the  men  who  had  voted  for  this  corrupt 
legislation,  saving  that  two  of  them,  Mr.  Myers  of 
Syracuse  and  Mr.  Littlejohn  of  Oswego,  were  renomin- 
ated, and  demanding  to  know  if  The  Tribune  was 
going  to  support  these  men  ?  We  want  to  know,  said 
these  inquirers,  because  The  Tribune  is  an  influential 
paper  and  believes  that  purity  is  above  party.  "  What 
iias  that  paper  to  do  with  the  people  of  Oswego  ?" 
Why,  the  paper  circulates  there  and  many  people  be- 
lieve that  it  tells  the  truth ;  and  it  is  bound  to  speak  out. 
If  silent  it  may  mislead  these  people.  They  look  into 
the  columns  of  The  Tribune  to  see  what  Mr.  Greeley 
thinks  of  the  matter.  They  want  to  know  what  Mr. 
Littlejohn  is,  and  vrhether'  they  ought  to  send  him 
back  or  not.  They  think  the  newspapers  bound 
to  tell  them  one  way  or  the  other.  That  is 
what  the  inquirer  and  the  people  of  Oswego  iu 
effect  said  to  this  paper.  Suppose  the  editor  of 
that  newspaper  had  kept  silent  on  the  subject  1  He 
misleads  these  people,  don't  he  ?  They  wrote  to  him 
for  information  and  enlightenment  on  the  subject,  and 
if  he  is  a  true  man  he  will  enlighten  them.  If  he  cares 
for  the  interest  of  party  alone  he  will  not  enlighten 
them;  but  if  he  cares  more  for  the  interest  of  good 
morals  and  of  good  government  he  will  enlighten  them, 
though  it  rend  the  party  in  twain.  That  is  our  case 
and  our  view  of  it. 

That  corrupt  legislation  of  last  Winter  !  What  do  I 
say  ?  "  The  corrupt  legislation  of  last  Winter  ?"  You 


13 


have  heard  the  expression  a  thousand  times  !  It  is  no-  i 
torious  !  You  eay  "  a  man,"  but  wheu  you  mean  a 
particular  man.  you  say  "  the  man."  Everybody 
knows  w^hat  you  mean.  The  legislntion  was  notori- 
ous !  Nothing  could  be  more  so.  From  the  17th  of 
April,  1860,  up  to  this  hour,  more  political  nominations 
have  turned  upon  that  than  upon  any  other  one  thing 
probably  that  ever  occurred  in  the  whole  history  of  the 
8tate  of  Nevv-York.  I  remind  you  of  the  Chicago  Con- 
vention; did  not  that  turn  upon  this  question  of  the 
corrupt  legislation  of  last  Winter  1  You  know  whether 
it  did  or  not.  You  lieard  men  stuoifnng  the  State  last 
Autumn,  making  this  the  theme  and  almo.st  the  only 
thenie,  of  political  persuat-iou  and  of  political  discussion. 
You  lemember  that  Senator  Spiuola,  a  Brooklyn  Dem- 
ocrat, traveled  the  whole  State  over,  and  throughout 
the  State  of  Maine  and  elsewhere.  I  happened  to  meet 
him  in  Maine  my nelf— giving  everywhere  as  a  reason 
why  the  now  rresideut  of  the  United  States  should 
not  be  elected — that  this  legislation  was  so  corrupt, 
making  this  ihe  great  argument  against  the  liepublican 
party;  and  this  had  to  be  met  everywhere.  If  Mr. 
Greeley  had  omitted  to  come  forward  and  take 
the  ground  he  took  in  the  article  in  question 
be  would  have  been  recreant  to  his  party,  recreant 
to  his  trust.  The  learned  Counsel  told  you 
that  this  legislation  met  with  no  rebuke.  Why,  gentle- 
men, he  told  you  that  Mr.  Littlejobn  w^as  re-elected 
from  the  First  Assembly  District  of  Oswego,  and  sent 
back  to  Albany,  and  that  he  was  re-elected  to  the 
Speakership  again,  without  one  word  of  reprobation 
upon  that  subject.  Gentlemen,  the  very  caucus  that 
nominated  Mr.  Littlejobn  for  the  Speakership  last  Janu 
ary  passed  strong  condemnatory  resolutions  of  the 
corrupt  legislation  of  tbe  preceding  Winter,  and  of 
"which.  Mr.  Littlejobn  said  to  those  around  him,  "  he 
hoped  the  resolution  would  be  unanimously  adopted." 
Here  it  is: 

Whereas,  Certain  measures  at  the  last  session  of  the  Legisla- 
ture were  vetoed  by  the  Governor,  and  subsequently  passed 
over  his  vetoes :  and  ' 

Whereas,  The  people  at  the  last  election  condemned  these 
measures,  and  sustained  the  vecoes  of  the  Governor;  therefore, 

Be  it  Resolved,  Tliat  the  Republican  members  of  the  Assembly 
will,  in  their  official  capacity,  sustain  the  principles  set  forth  iu 
the  veto  message  of  the  Governor,  and  faithfully  c&ixy  out  the 
decision  of  the  people  as  expressed  at  the  last  election. 

Can  you  have  anything  more  condemnatory  than  that  ? 
The  counsel  told  you  that  no  remonstrances  were  sent 
np  against  these  bills.  Why,  gentlemen,  the  name  of 
the  remonstrances  that  were  sent  up  was  legion  !  But 
how  iale  !  I  will  endeavor  to  show  you  why  it  would 
have  done  no  good  to  have  filled  the  Capitol  with  re- 
monstrances against  these  measures. 

Gentlemen,  this  case  divides  itself  naturally  as  it 
already  occurred  to  you,  I  am  sure,  into  two  distinct 
heads.  First,  Was  there  corrupt  legislation  during  the 
Winter  of  1860  ?  Second,  Was  Mr.  Littlejobn  promi- 
nent in  that  coiTupt  legislation  ?  Now,  gentlemen,  it 
used  to  be  said  in  old  times  that  "  the  greater  the  truth 
the  greater  the  libel;"  but  those  times  are  long  gone 
by;  though  even  in  those  old  times  tbis  maxim  was 
never  applied  to  the  case  of  a  action  brought  for 
damages.  It  only  applied  to  caees  of  indictment.  It 
has  always  been  true  thtit  the  trutti  of  libel  was  a  per- 
fect defense  in  a  civil  action ;  and,  in  this  State,  it  is 
made  a  perfect  defense  against  indictment  by  the  Con- 
stitution. 

It  is  a  perfect  defense  if  we  show  that  what  we 
have  said  to  be  true.  Now,  you  will  observe  we  have 
charged  two  things:  First,  tnere  was  corrupt  legisla- 
tion during  the  Winter  of  1S60;  second,  that  Mr.  Lit- 
tlejobn was  prominent  in  that  corrupt  legislation.  We 
shall  prove  the  iirst  of  these  propositions,  1  think,  to 
your  satisfaction.  We  will  put  this  branch  of  the  case 
beyond  the  possibility  of  a  doubt.  Now,  let  me  pro- 
ceed to  show  you  the  nature  of  this  proof,  and  confine 
your  attention  to  a  critical  and  minute  examination  of 
the  nature  and  character  of  this  proof.   You  see  at  a 


glance,  it  cannot  be  direct  proof.  You  know  tliat 
if  a  man  is  going  to  commit  a  crime,  he  never 
invites  two  or  three  good  honest  men  to  go 
along  and  see  hina  do  it — never!  never!  All  male- 
factors are  convicted,  if  couvi.;ted  at  all,  in  almost 
every  instance  upon  circumstaniial  evidence.  A  man 
who  is  to  do  a  wrong  deed  goes  alone  and  in  silence,  he 
invites  no  scrutiny  and  no  observation.  He  knows, 
perhaps,  that  there  is  one  eye  upon  him — the  eve  above 
— and  he  means  there  shall  be  no  other.  He  is  brave 
toward  Heaven,  but  he  is  cowardly  toward  man.  You 
see  at  a  glance  that  the  proof  we  have  to  give 
you  must  be  circumstHntial.  If  you  were  go- 
ing to  get  the  Legislature  to  give  you,  or 
to  a  number  of  you,  a  million  of  dollars, 
you  would  at  once  perceive  that  you  had  got  to  approach 
the  subject  velvet -footed.  You  would  tind  it  for  your 
interest  to  wear  a  sedate  and  perhaps  a  saddened 
face,  an  air  of  modesty  and  quiet,  which  would  not 
subject  you  to  scrutiny.  You  never  would  be  seen 
talking  with  anybody  of  a  suspicious  character;  you 
would  never  talk  wnth  anybody  who  would  peacli 
upon  you;  you  would  cover  up  jour  footsteps  as 
carefully  as  pDssible.  That  is  this  case,  isn't  it  ? 
You  see  we  have  circumstantial  evidence,  and  cau 
have  nothing  else.  If  we  had  direct  evidence,  it 
would  be  almost  a  suspicious  circumstance — for  it 
would  tend  to  impeach  the  ability  with  which  the 
scheme  shotild  have  been  concocted.  We  are  charging 
something  pretty  broad.  It  rests  upon  the  shoulders 
of  a  good  many  men,  no  doubt,  and  these  men  who 
are  implicated  in  it  are  just  as  guilty  one  as  the  other. 
It  is  very  hard  to  prove  guilt' by  gtdlt's  own  instru- 
ments. We  shall  call  witnesses,  gentlemen,  M'ith 
whom  we  cannot  converse  and  say — "  What  can  we 
prove  by  you?"  They  won't  tell  us.  We  have 
got  to  call  these  men  and  get  from  them  such  cir- 
cumstances as  are  calculated  to  convince  yott  morally 
that  this  legislation  of  the  Winter  of  186Q  was 
corrupt.  Mr.  Littlejobn  may  be  literally  accurate 
in  many  of  his  statements;  I  could  put  my  hand 
upon  a  good  many  of  his  printed  statements  with- 
in the  last  year  where  he  says  "  I  never  took  a  cent 
directly  or  indirectly,  for  my  vote  or  my  influence  in 
the 'Legislature."  Whether  he  did  or  not  is  not  mate- 
rial here.  That  is  not  necessary  in  any  sense  to  es- 
tablish our  defense.  Whether  he  did  take  bribes 
or  not  is  not  a  matter  we  are  going  to  inquire  into 
particularly.  We  dont  care  much  about  that.  We 
are  going  to  show  that  the  legislation  was  corrupt 
and  that  he  was  prominent  in  that  legislation. 
What  is  the  word  "prominent!"  That  it  is  more 
difficult  to  convict  Mr.  Littlejoim  of  this,  than 
to  convict  perhaps  most  of  the  members  who 
were  prominent  in  the  Legislature,  you  may  well  im- 
agine. He  was  the  Speaker  of  the  House;  he  was  a 
very  influential  man  with  that  Legislature,  if  control 
over  their  votes  is  evidence  of  influence.  He  was 
prominent;  he  could  come  down  from  the  Speaker's 
chair  and  address  the  House  with  great  effect.  He  is  a 
good  speaker — an  effective  debater.  He  could  carry 
almost  any  measure  he  saw  fit,  and  it  was  important 
to  have  just  such  a  man  in  just  that  place;  and  of  all 
men  connected  with  the  whole  matter,  he 
nmst  be  kept  above  suspicion — hke  the  chaste 
lady  in  the  Masque,  "lofty,  spotless,  and  serene," 
not  even  to  be  chatted  at,  but  only  pointed  out  and 
grinned  at  by  those  satyrs  and  goblms  of  the  Legisla- 
ture— the  Lobby.  He  must  be  a  man  who  never  re- 
lents, whose  heart  has  no  softening  toward  corruption, 
and  who  must  never  lend  a  ])ityiiig  ear  to  the 
ravens  of  the  Lobby  when  they  cry  for  bread.  That 
was  a  part  of  the  progranune,  and  that  was  admirably 
carried  out  by  one  whom  I  will  denominate  the  Father 
of  the  Lobby,  and  who  had,  in  the  peisnn  of  Mr. 
Littlejobn,  one  whom  I  may  denominate  his  fondest 
and  best  beloved  son.  Now,  under  these  circumstances, 
Gentlemen,  how  do  you  suppose  we  cau  prove  Mr. 


14 


Littlejolm'e  connection  \vith  this  matter?  On  tbe  , 
other  bide,  they  have  told  us  that  v,e  cannot  prove  | 
it;  the  learred  coiineel  told  us  in  tbe  opening  that  we  j 
couM  not  look  ibto  tbe  retesfies  of  bis  heart  and  see  ! 
the  motives  he  had ;  it  vras  his  boast  that  we  could  not  j 
look  into  that.  Gentlemen,  we  shall  prove  it  by  cir-  ' 
cumstantial  evidence,  evidence  by  which  almost  every  | 
other  crime  is  proven.  We  skall prove  if. ;  and  when  { 
that  is  proved,  you  will  agree  with  me  that  the  task  of  i 
proving  that  Mr.  Littlejobn  was  prominent  in  it  is  ] 
very  slight.   I  don't  think  that  wilfbe  denied. 

Now,  gentlemen,  we  have  named  iu  our  answer  those 
acts  which  are  generally  denominated  the  New- York 
railroad  acts,  four  or  "live  of  them,  and  what  is 
called  the  Taylor  and  Brennau  or  "  West  Washington 
Market  bill,  "  of  which  the  learned  counsel  spoke  last 
nieht.  We  have  specified  these;  we  might  have 
named  many  more;  might  name  the  Brooklyn  Ferry 
bill,  to  pass  which  the  Common  Council  of  the  City 
of  Brooklyn  appropriated  $20,000.  But  let  that  paes. 
It  is  important,  in  thirs  view,  to  ask  how  came  the 
Common  Council  of  Brooklyn  to  appropriate  $20,- 
000  to  get  that  measure  parsed.  As  you  pass  over 
to  Brooklyn  you  pay  two  cents  ferriage,  and 
they  thought  "  it  too  much ;  they  thought  they  | 
ought  to  pay  only  one  cent,  and  sought  to  obtain  [ 
the  passage  of  an  act  to  effect  it.  A  great  many  I 
people  pass  over  these  ferries,  perhaps  a  mil- 
lion daily.  How  many  members  of  the  Legislature 
were  there  ?  sav  150;  and  you  want  76  votes  to  pass 
a  bill.  But  what  did  they  want  with  $20,000  ?  To 
get  76  votes.  These  men  who  acted  in  Brooklyn 
were  not  fools ;  they  appropriated  it  out  of  the  Trea- 
sury, $10,000  was  spent,  gone,  from  the  Treasury  of  the 
city  of  Brooklyn  forever !  Where  did  it  go  to  1  What 
do  you  suppose  made  them  do  that,  if  they  had  not 
known  that  that  was  the  way  to  get  measures  through 
that  Legislature.  And  Mr.  Greeley  is  arraignei;  before 
you,  for  having  the  same  opinion.  They 'bucked  their 
opinion  with  $20,000.  When  a  man  bets  $20,0():>,  you 
may  know  he  has  got  a  sure  thing  of  it. 

But  their  names  are  legion.  I  need  not  i  o  over 
them.  That  Legislature  was  notoiiously  cormpi;  Gov. 
Morgan  stated  openly  that  "  eighty  niembf  r«  of  that 
Legislature  took  money  for  their  votes."  liv.  Little- 
jobn, in  one  of  his  speeches,  said  "that  perhaps  more 
members  of  that  Legislature  were  open  to  improper 
influences  than  of  any  other  former  Legislature."  Mr. 
Weed  said:  "  God  grant  we  may  never  look- upon  its 
like  again."  The-e  measures,  which  we  have  denomi- 
nated corrupt,  and  to  which  we  mean  principally  to 
confine  our  proof,  were,  you  remember,  vetoed  by  the 
Governor,  and  they  }  assed  over  the  Governor's  veto 
by  a  vote  of  two-thirds.  Gentlemen,  ever  since 
Sturtevant  was  imprisoned  ia  the  City  of  New-York 
for  a  contempt  of  Court,  for  refusing,  as  an  Alderman, 
to  obey  the  lujunction  of  the  Court,  in  granting  and 
giving' rights  to  lay  a  railroad  track  on  Broadway  and 
other  streets — from  that  moment  until  the  17th  of 
April,  1860,  there  has  been  iu  this  State  a  bevy  of  men 
who  know  that  in  these  railroads  there  was  a  gold 
placer  of  inestimable  value,  and  they  have  sought 
their  game  with  their  whole  hearts.  It  never  was 
achieved  until  that  never-to-be-forgotten  day,  the  17th 
day  of  April,  1860,  when  the  wish  of  their  hearts  was 
gratified,  and  they  succeeded  in  the  long-sought,  labo- 
rious, carefully-studied,  ingenious,  cunning  measure  of 
taking  out  of  the  City  of  New- York— oh,  I  could  say 
millions,  but  I  must  say  more  than  can  be  counted  by 
millions,  something  that  cannot  be  valued  by  money. 
I  will  speak  of  that  hereafter.  The  City  of  I^ew-York, 
you  know,  is  peculiar  in  its  geograpLical  structure. 
Unlike  other  great  cities,  it  may  be  almost  said  to 
have  length  without  breadth ;  it  is'^nearly  fifteen  miles 
in  length,  and  scarcely  two  in  width.  On  the  one  side 
is  the  North  Kiver,  and  on  the  other  winds  the  East 
River.  At  the  lower  part  of  the  town  most  of  the  busi- 
ness is  done;  Wall  street,  the  great  money  market  of 


this  country,  is,  you  know,  far  down  in  the  low  er  part 
of  the  city.  Men  who  do  butiness  down  town  live  up 
tow^n;  men  who  do  business  in  New-York  like 
to  live  in  the  city,  and  I  have  sometimes  thought  it 
might  almost  be  a  duty  to  do  so.  If  they  do  not  live 
there,  they  cannot  vote  tliere.  Where  tiieir  projierty 
is,  there  they  desire  the  rights  of  citizenship,  and  of 
voting  for  its  protection.  If  they  live  there,  they 
must,  morning  and  evening,  go  up  and  return  through 
this  tunnel,  if  I  may  call  it  so,  from  their  places  of 
business  to  their  homes.  Some  means  of  getting  up 
and  down  quick  is  indispensable.  Now  there  are  the 
Third,  Sixth,  and  Eighth  Avenue  lioads,  which  are 
the  principal  routes  up  and  down.  You  may  go  up 
these  roads  iu  the  morning  and  evening,  and  you  will 
observe  cars  that  will  cairy  about  40  persons,  if 
crowded  close,  with  70  seated  or  hanging  on.  As  a 
general  rule,  between  8  and  10  o'clock  in  the  morning 
the  cars  may  be  eaid  to  average  from  00  to  70  passen- 
gers, some  hanging  on  at  the  risk  of  personal  safety. 
Omnibuses  ply  up  and  down,  running  on  the  same 
streets  with  the  railroads,  and  you  go  into  an  omnibus 
when  you  cannot  get  into  a  car;  otherwise  you  get  up 
town  the  best  way  you  can.  We  have  felt  this  incon- 
venience for  a  great  while ;  we  have  felt  that  there 
must  be  more  railroads  up  and  down  the  city;  we  have 
known  that  the  Third  and  Sixth  and  Eighth  Avenue 
liailroads,  make  nominally  modeiate  dividends,  per- 
haps 15  or  20  per  cent  on  the  money  nominally  in- 
vested, but  a  small  part  of  which  was  ever  acttially 
invested  as  capital,  for  it  is  not  well  to  tell  the 
public  that  they  are  doubling  their  money  every  six 
months.  Some  of  those  boys  in  the  Sixth  Ward  might 
not  like  to  hear  of  their  making  profits  so  immensely 
large.  But  those  who  have  been  behind  the  scenes,  as 
the  Third  Avenue  Kaihoad,  know  that  there  never  was 
anything  so  lucrative  in  this  country  as  sotce  of  these 
roads.  I  have  no  doubt  the  money  actually  invested 
there  doubles  itself  once  every  six  months.  They  dis- 
pose of  what  it  will  not  do  publicly  to  divide,  by  meas 
ures  judiciously  concerted.  All  is  well  taken  care  of. 
The  stock  is  owned  by  a  few  individuals.  I  believe 
Mr.  Weed  owns  $60,000  of  it,  and  George  Law  the 
greater  part  of  all  the  rest.  These  proportions  may 
not  be  precisely  correct.  I  only  mention  it  incidental- 
ly. Now,  gentlemen,  we  want  these  railroads;  we 
havebten  laboring  hard  to  get  them  for  a  good  many 
years.  The  Governor,  ia  his  message,  said  that  the 
people  wanted  them,  and  he  is  a  citizen  of  New-York; 
and,  although  the  learned  counsel  made  some  remarks 
about  Gov.  Morgan,  which  I  thought  a  little  out  of 
place,  for  I  believe  in  deference,  as  well  as  obedience, 
to  magistrates.  But  I  do  not  complain ;  seeing  it  was 
necessary  he  should  say  it.  It  has  been  said  by  Mr. 
Littlejobn  that  the  message  which  was  read  to  us  vir- 
tually imputes  corruption  to  every  member  of  the 
Legislature.  He  wi?<.sZ  attack  the  Governor;  there  is 
no  other  way;  the  Governor's  me.ssage  stands  between 
him  and  a  verdict.  He  understood  that.  I  do  not  com- 
plain of  the  attack,  only  I  would  speak  with  what  re- 
spect I  could  of  the  Ci^^ef  Magistrate  of  the  State.  I 
don't  think  it  does  any  good  to  depreciate  the  officers  of 
the  Government  before  the  public.  Obedience  to  the 
law  and  deference  to  magistrates  are  cardinal  virtues. 
They  are  the  very  palladium  of  liberty  itself. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  say  we  wanted  these  roads;  we 
knew  that  the  Third,  Sixth,  and  Eighth  avenues  have 
five  cents  a  piece  for  carrying  passengers  back  and 
forth;  and  we  know  they  made  these itmnense  amounts 
of  money ;  and  nobody  knows  better  than  that  loi:)by, 
of  which  the  counsel  spoke  last  night  when  he  charged 
Mr.  Greeley  with  being  a  member  of  it,  the  immense 
value  of  these  franchises.  They  have  been  trying 
from  year  to  year  to  get  these  or  similar  bills  through. 
In  1859  they  succeeded  in  the  House,  and  lost  ic  in 
the  Senate  by  only  one  or  two  votes.  And  when  the 
Autumn  of  1*851)  came  round  it  became  exceedingly  im 
portant  to  arrange  etiectually  to  carry  these  measures. 


15 


was  known  that  the  Legislature  would  he  Repuhliran  j 
■.  lien  elected.    Thor^e  geirlenien  ot  the  Lol>>)y  discov  | 
t  ied  that  there  was  one  glorious  pretext  to  put'forward  I 
to  reach  a  clas^  of  rnen  who  were  strong  politicians,  1 
and  who  thought  pa^ty  was  to  be  advanced  a  liftle  j 
over  the  head  of  sonie  highec  principles.    Tliey  hit  I 
upon  a  plan  for  carrying  it;  it  was  wortliy  of  its  great  I 
author,  the  father  of  the  l^obhy.    They  faid :  "  we  pro- 
pose now,  that  this  Letjislature  pass  these  railroad  bills, 
and  out  of  these  bills  v\-e  will  get  the  whole  fund  that 
we  want  to  elect  our  President.    We  will  get  a  million 
dollars  out  of  tliese  bills  to  sfiend  in  electing  our  Piesi- 
dent  next  Fall — in  electing  Sir.  Seward  it  he  sliould  be  i 
nominated."     That  was  one  plan  fixed  upon.     It  [ 
seemed  to  them  that  the  pretense  was  at  least  plausible,  , 
and  that  it  might  carry;  conseciuently  that  was  put 
forth  for  the  ear  of  some.    It  had  this  tendency  at 
least,  to  let  the  wliole  thing  go  into  the  hands  of  those  i 
who  were  the  acknowledged  leaders  and  managers  of 
the  party.    If  A.  B.  was  one  of  the  managers  of  the  j 
party,  he  says:  "  Now,  C.  D.  cannot  comphiin  that  I  i 
have  a  liand  in  this,  for  I  act  for  the  party."  C.  D.  | 
does  consent  that  A.  B.  may  manage  it  for  the  party. 
Ir,  was  a  good  pretext  at  all  events,  and  it  had  the 
effect  to  get  it  into  the    hands    of    the  leaders 
of    the  part\'-.     Well,  gentlemen,  in  the  city  of 
New-York,    in    the  Autumn    of    1859,    this  was 
the  real   though  disguised  issue  upon  which  can- 
didates for  the  Legiblature   were   elected   or  de- 
feated.    You  will  observe  there  were  various  inter- 
esrstc^ be  considered  in  this  thing.    The  first  was  the  I 
corrupt  Republican  Lobby  interest,  which  was  ciis-  i 
guised  by  the  pretense  of  a  party  fund  to  elect  Mr.  } 
Seward.    The  second  was  corrupt  Democratic  Lobby  j 
influence,  which  took  the  disguise  of  the  stage  mo"-  i 
nopoly.  I 

Tbe're  were  men  who  had  invested  in  New-York 
omnibus  stage  lines  a  very  large  amount  of  capital.  ] 
If  railroads  are  put  on  the  same  streets,  they  would 
drive  the  omnibuses  off,  atd  these  men  would  sustain  j 
great  loss — consequently  they  should  be  indemnified.  ' 
That  was  plausible  and  well'done,  but  it  was  simply  a 
blind.  There  are  three  men  who  managed  that.  They 
were  leaders  at  Tammany,  and  claimed  to  represent 
the  stage  interest.  It  was  very  wise,  you  see,'  to  let 
the  Democratic  party  or  some  of  tlie  leaders  into  this 
thing,  so  far  as  to  have  some  hoi  i  upon  the  Demo- 
cratic members,  and  one-third  went  to  these  men,  un- 
der the  pretense  of  the  stage  interest.  But,  Gentle-  i 
men,  I  think  we  shall  show  to  you  that  the  stage  in-  \ 
terest — the  real  men — never  got  a  dollar.  That  was  ! 
the  second  interest.  Now,  Mr.  George  Law,  owning, 
as  you  know,  a  large  interest  in  the  railroad  already, 
has  an  interest  that  would  clearly  be  afiected  by  any  : 
additional  roads.  For,  there  is  tile  Sixth  avenue  road 
running  along  on  one  side  of  the  Seventh  avenue,  and  I 
there  is  the  Eighth  avenue  road  ruuuing  aloner  the 
other  side.  Now,  those  who  own  on  this  Sixth  or 
Eighth  avenue  railroad — if  they  can  carry  70  passen- 
gers in  one  car,  instead  of  40,  which  is  the  full  caiiacity 
of  a  car — they  would  be  damaged  by  having  ccmipeting 
a  road  put  down  in  the  Seventh  avenue.  That  was 
clearly  so.  Now,  Mr.  Law  and  his  party  I  will  call 
the  George  Law  interest — not  meaning  any  disrespect 
to  him,  personally,  at  all — and  I  may  say  herel  cannot 
Rtoj)  in  what  I  am  saying,  to  apologize  for  eveiy  name 
I  may  mention.  I  mean  no  jiersonal  disrespect  to  any- 
body. I  am  telling  you  facts,  and  whomsoever  they 
hit,  they  must  bear  it — I  cannot  help  it.  Thus, 
you  see  that  Mr.  Law  had  really  large  interests 
here;  he  thought  he  had  as  large  a  stake  in  it  as  any- 
body, and  I  think  so  too.  Mr.  Law  forced  himself 
iipon  the  other  two  interests — the  corrupt  Repub- 
lican (called  in  New-York  "  the  Machine  Republicans'  ) 
and  the  corrupt  Democratic — not  until  he  had  circum- 
vented them  in  the  Senate,  and  had  the  majority  of 
that  body  in  his  pocket — he  had  passed  bis  ''Gridiron 
bill  "  in  the  Senate  and  they  were  compelled  to  make 


terms  with  hiai  and  take  him  i  i  as  an  equ^  partner. 
Fro  71  thi.t  time  forth,  George  Law^  owned  atliird;  the 
Republican  lobby  a  third;  the  Democratic  lobby  the 
remaining  ihii  d.' 

Let  nie  just  glance  over  this  airain.  There  were 
three  interests;  one  I  will  call  the  New -York  niiboadi 
monopoly,  represented  by  Geo.  Law  (I  might  have 
called  if,  by  that  name  before,  and  avi.-ided  the 
us-,  of  Mr.  Law  s  name);  then  the  corrupt  Democratic 
Lobl>y  interest,  and,  third,  the  corrupt  Republican 
Lobby  interest.  These  three  were  the  represented  in- 
terests in  these  measures;  and  I  think  if  we  should 
strain  matters  a  little,  they  would  come  down  pretty 
nearly  to  be  led  by  three  men.  Under  this  organiza- 
tion when  a  man  came  up  for  election  from  the 
City  of  New-York  in  t')e  Fall  of  185^  it  berame 
of  considerable  importance  where  he  shoald  be 
upon  the  great  (^uesiion.  This  programtLe  was 
ado])ted.  To  illastra^e — A.  B.  gets  the  nomination  of 
tlie  Republican  party;  he  U  felt  of  and  found  to  be  all 
right  on  the  question.  "  Very  well,"  says  the  Demo- 
cratic interest,  "let  him  be  elected."  Then  C.  D.. 
gets  a  nomination  in  anot'  er  district  b}^  the  Demo- 
cratic party.  He  is  felt  of  and  found  all  right — "  Let 
himgo  in,''  say  the  Republiean  leaders.  But  tiere  comee 
a  man  from  the  Republican  side—"  It  won't  do  to  trust ; 
he  is  honest  and  true,  don't  trust  him."  So  say  these 
Republicans  in  secret — "  We  will  let  him  be  lieieated; 
let  the  Democrat  go  in,  he  is  safe."  In  iha"  way  taey~ 
went  through  the  city,  though  with  immense  labor; 
and  they  got  almost  every  man  in  that  city  safe  for 
them;  and  that  is  the  reason  why  the  learned  counsel 
on  the  other  side  found  last  night  that  the  New- 
Y^rk  members  nearly  all  went  for  these  measures. 
That  is  the  secret,  and  you  may  as  well  understand 
it,  ^'entlemen,  though  perhaps  at  the  exj'ense  of  weary- 
ing you. 

\\  ell,  gentlemen,  we  will  say  the  members  are  now 
elected,  "  We  have  elected  our  men"  chuckled  the 
lobby,  "  out  of  the  difiierent  parties;  we  have  taken 
glorious  good  care  of  that  little  town  of  Syracuse;  and 
we  think  we  are  toleraMy  safe  on  Oswego.'  It  t  irned 
out  they' were  entirely  sa^e  at  Oswego.  We  will  go 
up  to  Albany  now.  The  Demo  ratio  and  Republicarij 
iiitejesis  are  there  at  Albany ;  they  are  going  t'^  make 
sure  work  this  time.  Up  to  this  time,  you  will  recol- 
lect, there  were  but  two  parties  to  Ibis  scheme — the^ 
whole  loots  to  be  divided  only  by  the  figure  0. 

"  Biightly  it  sparkles  to  plunderer's  eyes.'' 

At  first  this  thing  seems  to  be  going  through  all  right. 
Mr.  George  Law,  a  man  of  great  wealth,  and  of  great 
ability — 1  si>eak  what  I  know — discovers  this  plan. 
Now,  says  Mr.  Law:  "  I  am  not  going  to  let  these  fel- 
lows rob  me.''  He  goes  up  to  Albany  and  goes  to 
work  in  the  Senate.  In  the  Senate  tiiere  aie  3"2 
members,  and  you  know  of  them  would  be  sufficient 
for  his  purposes.  Mr.  Law  went  there  with  Ids  money 
and  his  genius,  his  friends  and  his  retainers ;  and  got 
up  what  was  called  the  *'  Gridiron  Bill."  Embracing 
all  the  feasible  routes  in  the  city  and  aggrega  ing  them 
into  one  bill,  he  got  that  through  the  Senate.  You  see 
then,  that  Mr.  George  Law  has  checkmated  them;  and 
done  it  very  well,  very  cleverly.  There  mast  be  a 
compromise  now.  It  takes  place,  and  Mr.  George 
Law  joins  with  the  other  two  interests,  and  then  they 
divide  these  into  five  measures — into  five  bill.-^,  putting 
in  the  names  of  persons  satisfactory  to  these  three 
great   interests.     Mr.  Law,  the  Railroad  interest. 

Mr.   ,  well  I  won't  mention  his  name,  and 

his  associates   and   followers,    the  liepublicau  in- 
terest;   and  for  the  Democratic    interest — I  may 
as  well  call  Peter  B.  Sweeney  hy  name:  for  you 
know  who  I  mean;   he  is  Sachein  of  Tammany, 
a  lawyer  in  New-York;  was  once  Public  Administra- 
I  tor;  a'fterwaul  District-Attorney,  though  he  mielyif 
!  ever  appeared  in  Court;  I  believe  he  was  afterward 
I  Commissioner,  appointed  by  the  Speaker  of  the  House, 


16 


to  appraise  Dr.  Thompson's  and  other  damages  occa-  f  you  got  it  there  was  a  provision  ia  the  Constitution 
t;ioned  !»y  the  burning  of  the  Quarantine  property  of  .  that  they  aij^ht  tdke  it:  away,  and  you  take  it  subject 
Staten  Island— though  he  was  not  a  Eepublicnn  nor  a  I  to  that  ])rovision— it  is  a  part  of  the  bargain  by  wnich 
Know-Nothing,  as  I  believe  Mr.  Littlejohu  was  when  '  you  ac(|uire  it.  Kow,  these  men  did  nt  mean  to  make 
he  iirst  went  to  the  Assembly.  two  bites  of  a  cherry.   From  the  time  I  iiave  referred 

Mr.  Foster— Does  the  counsel  mf-an  to  say  that  i  to,  when  this  magnificent  mine  of  wealth  appeared  he- 
Mr.  Sweeney  was  appointed  by  Mr.  Littlejohu  ?  He  j  fore  the  eyes  of  the  politicians  of  that  day— from  that 
liad  better  say  Gov.  31organ,  if  he  means  to  speak  the  j  time,  to  the  time  they  attained  it,  whatever  of  iu- 
:iutb.      ^  I  genuiry,  whatever  of  skill,  could  be  brought  to  bear 

Mr.  Williams — I  see  they  repel  the  imputation  |  upon  the  subject, has  been  brought  to  bear;  and  by  almost 
ihat  Mr.  Sweeney  was  appointed  by  Mr.  Liitlejohn.  I  j  a  flight  of  genius  these  acts  of  1860  were  so  framed  as 
ghall  be  glid  if  they  relieve  themselves  of  that  imputa-  I  to  evade  this  glorious  constitutional  provision  !  Evade 
tion.  I  hope  it  v\;on'_t  trans^-pire  during  this  trial  that  ;  v7/  _  Wickedly  evade  it!  Evade  it  iu  fraud  of 
Mv.  Littlejohn  is  in  any  closer  connection  with  the  rights  of  the  people;  for  it  subjected  the  people  to 
Mr.  Sweeny  than  what  I  have  indicated.  I  see  a  cruel  monopoly  of  moneyed,  huge,  unwieldy,  soul- 
they  shrink  from  it.  They  had  better  slirink  less  corporations,  which  were  afterward  fortiied  and 
from  it;  they  will  be  fortunate  if  they  evade  i'u.  took  assignments  of  the  grantees  in  question.  These 
Though  Mr.  Law  had  this  stupendous  interest,  acts  create  no  corporations,  nothing  of  the  kind;  they 
his  name  does  not  appear  on  any  of  these  bills.  The  cor-  ^  give  to  A,  B,  C,  D,  E,  F,  G-,  H,  and  thtsir  assigns  for- 
rnpt  le  aders  of  the  Republican  party  who  had  these  mil- :  ever  the  rights  and  franchises  conferred.  You  see 
lions  of  iiitei  est  iu  these  bills,  observed  the  same  cau- |  it  is  a  grant  with  no  power  to  take  ic  away  under 
tion:  their  names  do  not  appear;  but  I  think  the  name  j  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  conferring  tfie  right 
of  Mr.  Peter  B.  Sweeney  aiid  those  of  his  two  princi-  to  lay  down  and  run  these  various  roads  aJl  over  the 
pal  associates  do  appear.  I  don't  know  why  they  city ;  everywhere  a  road  can  by  any  possibility  be  nec- 
saw  tit  to  take  this  risk,  but  they  did.  Perhaps  they  essary  or  profitable.  They  give  it  to  these  grantees 
had  not  so  trusty  followers  as  the  other  interests  had.  and  their  assigns  forever  !  The  plan  was  most  cun- 
Gentlemen,  a  good  many  years  ago,  when  the  old  Dem-  ningly  devised.  The  more  I  consider  these  laws,  the 
ocratic  party  was  in  existence — for  although  I  never  >  more  I  appreciate  the  astonishishing  intellect  of  that 
was  a  member  of  it,  I  cannot  wi'hholdthe  expression  of  '  man  to  whom  I  have  so  often  referred  for  I  am  told 
my  admiration  of  some  characteristics  that  old  "party  as  it  that  it  was  his  device  that  thus  laid  the  constitution 
once  was — a  fierce  war  was,  as  you  remember,  waged  ;  powerless  at  the  foot  of  the  Lobby.  Thus  he  counseled 
upon  corporations  as  dangerous  monopolies.  They  were  '  with  himself  and  his  confederates — "  We  will  have  the 
right !  When  the  convention  of  1846  came  together,  franchises  granted  to  A,  B,  C,  D,  E,  F,  and  their 
they  provided  by  the  fundamental  law  of  the  State  that  !  assigns — to  persons  who  shall  hold  them  for 
corporations  thereafter  created  should  forever  be  sub-  i  us  and  transfer  them  at  our  bidding;  then  we 
ject  to  legislative  control,  should  be  dissolved,  their  .  will  form  corporations  under  the  general  act 
charters  taken  away,  repealed  or  modified  if  the  legis-  of  1850,  and  take  assignments  from  these  per- 
la'ive  power  saw  fit  to  do  so.  It  was  a  good  and  wise  sons  to  our  corporations,  and  there  we  are 
provision  ;  it  was  a  protection  which  we  needed  in  our  forever  secure  from  the  people,  whether  their  majesty 
fundamental  law.  They  meant  to  protest  the  people  speak  through  Legislatures  or  constitutional  Conven- 
against  the  tyranny  of  large  moneyed  mon'opolies;  and  tions,  we  are  safe."  "  We  will  do  that;  and  then  we 
they  did  well.  That  Constitution  stands  to  day.  It  I  will  form  corporations  without  personal  responsibility 
stood  in  full  force  and  power  on  the  17t;h  of  April,  1860.  [  or  liability;  lay  down  tracks  and  run  these  roads  or 
It  was  necessary,  because  a  franchise  given  by  the  not,  as  we  see  ht,  we  have  it  all  in  our  own  hands  for- 
Legislature;  the"^  law-making  power — is  in  the  nature  ,  ever."  *' Our  franchises  are  purchased  from  individuals, 
of  a  contract;  it  had  been  so  decided  by  the  Court  in  !  and  no  Legislature,  no  law,  no  Court,  no  constitution- 
the  case  of  the  Dartmouth  College — that  a  fran-  al  Convention,  nothiog  under  the  broad  light  of  heaven 
chise — a  gift  to  the  founder  of  that  college — is  iu  can  ever  take  away  from  us  this  right !  VV^e  have  got 
the  nature  of  a  contract,  and  could  not  be  taken  it  to-day;  we  have  got  it  forever  and  forever  !" 
away  by  the  Le.sislature.  The  Constitution  of ;  That  is  the  fearful  truth !  There  is  but^'one 
the  United  States  provides  that  no  State  shall  pass  .  event  that  can  take  it  away,  and  that  is  that 
any  law  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts;  '  awful  event — Revolution!  That  is  the  only  thing 
therefore  if  a  contract  exists,  any  law  of  the  that  can  ever  take  away  these  rights.  Gentlemen,  it 
State,  an  act  of  the  Legislature  impairing  it  was  competent,  it  was  usual  to  provide  in  acts  of  the 
would  be  void,  as  contravening  the  provisions  of  the  character  of  these,  "  These  acts  may  be  repealed  by 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  A  grant  is  a  contract;  any  subsequent  Legislature,"  and  then  it  would  be  in 
a  franchise,  a  gift,  a  right  conferred  by  the  Legislature  the  power  of  the  Legislature  to  take  away  these 
is  a  contract,  and  since  the  case  of  the  Dartmouth  Col-  grants,  because  it  was  a  part  of  the  bargain  that 
lege  this  principle  has  never  been  doubted.  No  legis-  gave  them  that  they  might  be  so  taken  away, 
lative  power  can  take  it  away.  The  Constitution  of  Yet  only  one  of  these  acts  had  that  clause  m 
1846  provided  that  hereafter  wheo  the  Legislature  it.  The  Legislature  had  their  attention  called 
grants  franchises,  the  Legislature  shall  have  the  power  to  the  subject  you  see;  because  they  pro- 
of taking  them  away;  and  those  who  take  any  of  these  vide  in  only  one  of  the  bills  that  the  grants  may  be 
grants,  shall  take  them  subject  to  the  right  of  the  I  repealed  or  modified,  but  the  others  never — never! 
Legislature,  to  take  them  away.  If  I  sell  you  a  horse  ,  Under  that  one,  in  which  there  is  this  right  to  take 
to-day,  with  the  right  to  take  it  back  to-morrow,  I  can  back,  they  have  got  organized  with  a  President  and 
do  so,  because  it  is  a  part  of  the  bargain ;  but  if  it  is  Secretary  and  opened  their  stock-book,  and  it  forms 
not  a  part  of  the  bargain,  I  could  not  do  so.  Thai  is  |  what  is  called  the  Belt  road.  It  runs  along  the  North 
the  case  exactly.  Keep  it  steadily  before  you,  that  under  and  East  Rivers,  across  near  the  Central  Park, 
our  State  Constitution,  no  grant  could  be  made  to  any  j  and  belts  the  lower  part  of  the  city  corn- 
corporation,  or  joint  stock  company,  or  company  having  {  pletely.  This  franchise  is  of  very  great  value, 
the  rights,  franchises,  &:c.,  of  a  joint  stock  company  it  runs  along  by  these  docks  (pointing  to  the  map) 
which  the  Legislature  could  not  take  away ;  so  that  all  in  the  lower  part  of  the  city  where  an  immense  busi- 
gi'ants  to  corporations,  companies,  and  associations  nees  is  done;  so  if  you  have  goods  there  upon  these 
were  taken,  subject  to  the  right  of  a  future  Legisla-  docks  they  can  be  run  right  out  on  to  the  track  and 
ture  to  take  them  away.  If  you  form  a  corporation,  then  they  are  ready  for  transportation  to  any  part  of 
or  procure  a  charter  from  the  Legislature,  any  future  the  city.  That  is  one  of  the  most  valuable  interests 
Legislature  can  take  it  away  again :  because  before  probably  in  the  world.   The  corporation  when  they 


17 


ome  together  fixed  the  stock  value  of  the  franchise  at 
Mie  million  and  a  quarter  of  dollars.  They  were  very 
cimriing  to  value  it  at  this  comparatively  trifling  sum, 
if  they  had  put  it  ten  million  dollars  which  is  its  prob- 
able vfilue,  they  would  have  alarmed  the  people.  But 
we  will  t;ike  their  estimate  of  it — a  million  and  a  quar- 
ter !  !  True,  this  grant  has  a  repealing  ^-lause  in  it;  but 
t  lie  others  have  none.  The  Seventh-avenue  grant  is 
•-ircfely  less  valuable,  and  that  is  true  of  some  of  the 
other  grants:  and  this  ioimense  amount  of  proj)erty 
was  nominally  given  to  various  persons  named  in  these 
bills  respectively  by  the  Legislative  acts  of  which  we 
complHiu,  and  which  we  say  were  corrvpt.  That  act 
is  corrupt,  which  ought  not  to  have  been  passed  by 
reason  of  having  been  voted  for  from  motives  other 
than  the  public  good.  If  when  you  are  about  to  elect 
a  man  from  your  District  to  represent  you  at  AU)auy, 
he  says,  "  I'want  you  to  elect  me  to  tbe  Legislnture, 
for,  although  the  property  of  the  State  behmgs  to  all 
the  citizens  alike,  yet  I  want  to  take  a  million  dollars 
worth  of  the  property  of  the  State  and  give  it  to  A  B, 
C  D,  and  E  F ; "  you  would  reply,  ' '  O  no,  you  must  not 
do  that;  you  must  not  take  away  our  property  and  give 
\  it  to  individuals;  that  is  not  right.  You  must  legislate 
for  the  good  of  all — for  the  good  of  the  whole  State. 
You  must  not  select  a  single  individual  interest,  and 
promote  that  at  the  expense  of  all  the  rest ;  thac  is  cor- 
rupt." You  heard  the  oath  administered  to  the  Grand 
Jury — "  you  do  solemnly  swear  you  will  present  no 
person  from  envy,  hatred  or  malice;  you  will  with- 
'  hold  no  presentment  through  fear,  favor,  affection,  re- 
ward, or  hope  of  reward."  If  they  violate  that  oath, 
they  should' be  indicted,  and  your  "District  Attorney 
would  charge  theniyin  the  indictment  with  having  act- 
ed corruptly.  We  say  a  usurious  contract  is  a  corrupt 
contract — that  the  parties  corruptly  agreed  to  take 
more  than  seven  cents  fof  the  use  of  a  dollar  for  a 
year.  A  usurious  agreement  is  by  law  a  corrupt 
agreement.  The  statute  of  1853  provides  tliat  a  party 
may  he  indicted  for  being  influenced  to  give  his  vote  by 
any  external  consideration  of  good  or  advantage — an  in- 
dictment for  a  violation  of  that  act  must  charge  him  wiih 
having  committed  a  corrupt  act.  Now  we  charge  these 
acts  with  being  corrupt !  We  say  tbat  these  persons 
voted  to  take  away  from  the  State  a  franchise,  or  ra- 
ther give  away  from  the  State  a  right,  which  was 
of  great  value,  to  individuals,  selected  individui'ls; 
and  the  very  act  itself  on  its  face  was  corrupt.  If  your 
servant,  when  his  friends  come  around  hiai,  gives 
away  your  property,  a  hoe  to-day,  and  a  wheelbarrow 
to-morrow,  and  a  shovel  tlie  next  day,  you  don't  think 
there  is  much  difference  between  his  case  and  that  of 
the  man  who  takes  your  property  without  giving  it 
away  to  his  friends;' you  don't  think  there  is  nmch 
difference;  there  is  none  in  law  and  none  in  morale. 
But  to  the  act  8 :  An  act  to  authorize  the  construc- 
tion of  a  railroad  on  southwest,  and  certain  other 
streets  in  the  City  of  New- York." 

Mr.  Foster — There  is  no  such  bill  mentioned  in  the 
answer. 

Mr.  Williams— Is  your  position  this,  that  you  will 
not  allow  me  to  prove  corruption  on  Mr.  Littlejohn  by 
showing  it  through  this  act  ?  If  this  is  your  position 
tell  the  Jury  so. 

Mr.  Foster — I  am  not  here  to  be  catechised;  I  pro- 
pose to  talk  to  the  Court. 

Mr.  Williams — [proceeded  to  read  from  the  acts; 
reading  the  names  of  the  grantee8,characteri8ing  tliem 
as  for  the  most  part,  unheard  of  and  unknown  individu- 
als holding  DV  appointment — holding  for  tlieir 
masters].  Gentlemen,  these  acts  took  that  form, 
and  they  came  forward  to  be  passed  in  tbat  form — giv- 
ing franchises  to  men — Why  given  to  these  men  ? 
Why  not  give  to  Mr.  Weed.  Mr.  Law,  and  Mr.  Swee- 
ney and  their  associates,  the  real  owners  of  them? 
They  did  not  choose  to  let  their  names  appear.  Millions 
given  away  here,  to  men  you  never  heard  of — you  may 
poll  this  Court-room  and  you  cannot  find  a  single  man 

2 


who  ever  heard  of  half  of  ihem;  you  cannot  find  teu 
men  who  know  one  of  them.  In  some  countries  it  is 
commoa  to  pension  a  veteran  patriot  who  has  done 
great  service  to  the  nation.  It  is  so  in  England.  I 
look  with  admii-ation  on  the  English  Constitution  in 
that  respect.  The  great  Duke  was  pensioned.  I  re- 
member billing  in  the  Ilonse  of  Commons  when  the 
vote  was  passed  giving  a  ])en8ion  to  the  Speaker  who 
had  filled  the  chair  of  tiie  House  of  Commons  for  18 
years,  without  having  received  a  shilling  for  his  ser- 
vices. It  ib  common  and  I  conceive  proper,  for  Legis- 
lative bodies  to  reward  the  services  of  great  men  vtho 
have  served  their  country;  men  who  have  exposed 
their  lives  upon  the  field  of  battle. 

"  PatriotB  h'^ve  toiled,  and  in  their  country's  cause 
Bled  nobly ;  and  tlieir  deeds,  as  tbey  deserve, 
Receive  proud  recompense.    We  t'lve  in  charge 
Their  names  to  the  sweet  lyre.   The  historic  muse, 
Proud  of  hT  treasure,  marches  down  to  latest  time  ; 
An  sculpture,  in  her  turn,  gives  bond  in  stone 
And  ever-during  brass,  to  guard  them 
And  immortalize  her  trust." 

But  who  ever  heard  of  these  men  who  have  mil- 
lions given  them  ?    Your  money  and  mine !  The 
State  of  Maryland,  a  few  years  ago,  contemplated  the 
necessity  of  running  railroads  through  the  City  of  Bal- 
timore, and  what  did  they  do  ?  They  gave  the  fran- 
chise to  certain  individuals,  pledging  them  to  proceed  at 
once  upon  tlie  work  or  lo::=e  the  franehise;  they  fixed 
the  fare  at  five  cents,  provided  that  one  cent  on  each 
passenger  should  be  paid  into  the  City  Treasury  to 
make  a  park;  and  that  one  cent  to-day  has  built  a 
park  superior  to  the  New- York  Central  Paik,  which 
has  cost  nearly  $7,000,000!    Thgt  js  history.  Seven 
million  dollars  it  has  cost  to-day,  and  it  is  but  begun, 
Baldmoie,  I  am  told,   has   a   park    superior  to 
this,  out  of  the  one  cent  of  the  five  cent  fare  on  just 
such  railroads  as  these.    Take  away  my  property  and 
yours!   I  tell  you,  they  take  away  the  property 
of  every  man  in  the  State  of  New-York.   These  men, 
then,  have  got  these  franchises.    I  will  give  you  the 
form  in  which  they  dispose  of  their  stock.    It  will  be 
a  printed  paper  like  this:  "  For  and  in  consideration  of 
the  sum  of  $10,  to  me  in  hand  paid,  the  receipt  whereof  is 
hereby  confessed  and  acknowledged, I — whoever  it  may 
I  be— hereby  sell,  assign,  transfer,  and  set  over  to  such  a 
,  corporation — naming  it — all  my  right,  title,  andinterest 
;  in  and  to  the  franchise  conveyed  to  me  in  chapter  111 
of  rtct  so  and  so;  to  have  and  hoM  unto  the  said  corpor- 
ation forever."    That  is  the  way  they  have  disposed 
j  of  their  tranchises,  or  at  least  a  ]^art  of  them.  We 
I  shall  take  the  trouble  to  prove  only  one  of  these  as  a 
j  sample.   Now,  these  men   named,'  as  I  have  told 
I  you,  represent  respectively  one    of  the  thiee  in- 
I  terests.     The  division  of  those  respective  interests 
j  was  carefully  agreed  upon  and  fixed  before  the  pas- 
\  sage  of  the  acts.    Some  of  these  men  have  not  been 
'  true  to  tbeir  masters;  although,  gentlemen,  in  the  cor- 
rupt machine  politics  of  the  day,  the  great  virtue  of  a 
man  is  to  be  false  to  every  human  being  but  one — a 
man  like  the  man  who  "hasn't  anything  and  wants 
something;"  the  man  who  brought  the  pi[)e-layers 
from  Phifadelphia  in  company  witli  the  man  in  a  snuff- 
colored  coat  and  a  white  hat — vou  remember  all  about 
him.    The  great  virtue  to  be  true  to  one  and  false  to 
all  else  is  rare,  but  such  men  can  be  found,  and  tbey 
are  the  most  valuable  men  in  the  world.  Kochefoucault 
sought  such  men  and  would  have  no  other  about  him, 
and" the  Kochefoucault  of  this  country  has  adopted  the 
same  maxim.    It  is  said  that  a  majority  of  one  of  these 
franchises  have  already  been  sold  out  for  $50,000 — the 
road  most  needed  by  the  people  of  that  city — to  a  party 
whose  pecuniary  interest  absolutely  forbids  him  to 
build  or  run  the  road.    I  do  not  assert  this  as  a  fact — 
though  it  is  highly  probable — so  probable  that  if  it  be 
not  already  done  I  feel  sure  it  will  soon  be  done.  In 
this  event  of  course  the  miuoritv  grantees  will  stand  a 
pretty  good  chance  to  lose  all  benefit  from  their  fran- 
chise ;  at  all  events  it  is  miderstood  there  never  will 


18 


"be  a  trac'k  laid  do"^n  over  that  aveuue.    Ton  will  re- 
member the  Governor  ia  his  veto-message  suggested 
the  very  thing  to  Mr.  Littlejohn  and  his  associates  be- 
fore he  came  down  from  the  speaker's  chair  to  advo- 
cate the  passage  of  these  bills  over  the  Governor's 
veto.     You    recollect  that  he    said     that  these 
grantees     were    not    a   corporation,   and  there- 
fore not  within  the  provision  of  the  Constitution,  and  } 
therefore  the  grant  was  iu  perpetuity.    The  message 
which  the  learned  counsel  attacked  with  such  severity ! 
He  suggested  to  Mr.  Littlejohn  that  there  is  no  obliga- ! 
lion  imposed  on  these  grantees  to  make  or  build  these 
roads  by  the  bill  iu  question.    He  says  these  roads  are 
needed  very  much ;  but  by  making  the  bill  a  law,  if  I 
the  gi-autees  or  their  assigns  have  sucli  interest  in  an-  i 
other  road  as  to  make  it  for  their  best  interest  not  to  [ 
build  this  road,  or  either  road,  they  never  will  build  it.  ' 
it  is  easy  to  suppose  those  who  own  the  Eighth  and  I 
Sixth  avenue  Kailroads  have   such  an  interest  in  j 
them  that  they  find  it  for  their  interest  to  prevent  the 
building  of  the  Seventh  avenue  Road ;  they  never  will ! 
build  It ;  they  never  will  permit  it  to  be  built.   That  is  ! 
clear.    Are  you  going  lo  compel  them  to  build  it  ? 
You  cannot.   The  Governor  teUs  you  there  is  no 
provision  to  compel  them  to  do  it.    They  may  hold 
these  franchises  forever  and  never  build  those  roads. 
And  you  may  go  to  New-York  in  1870 — when  your 
children  are  doing  business  there  in  1890  you  and  they 
will  go  up  in  cars  with  70,  hanging  on  inside  and 
out  at  the  hazard  of  life  and  limb,  because  eomebodv 
under  this  act  owns  the  franchise  on  the  Seventli 
Avenue,  and  there  are  no  cars  there.   It  will  be  so  in 
1890;  it  will  be  so  in  1900,  and  soon  until— what? 
Call  a  convention  for  a  new  Constitution?    That  will  : 
not  remedy  it.    "  No  State  shall  pass  any  law  impair-  j 
ing  the  obligation  of  contracts''  says  the  Constitution  I 
of  the  United  States.    Gentlemen',  a  revolution  that  j 
sweeps  away  all  things  and  opens  wide  the  grave  of  j 
empire,    between   yoa    and   your   children  to-day  i 
and  the  privilege  of  going  up  the  Seventh  Avenue  in  \ 
a  car,  10,  20  or  50  years  hence !   The  thought  ia 
overwhelm,  ing,    but    it    is    true.     What  di!>posi- 
tion  has    been   made  of  this  franchise  one  can- 
not hear;  but  it  is  true  that  not  a  blow  has  been 
struck  directly   or    indirectly   by   any   of  these 
grantees  or  their  assigns  to  build  a  road  on  any  one  of 
these  avenues,  though  they  might  build  a  road  iu  three  i 
weeks'  time  for  about  $10,000  a  mile.    They  have  not  | 
done  it.   Are  they  going  to  do  it  ?    Ask  "those  deep  [ 
in  the  secrets — peihaps  they  will  tell  you.   Are  you  I 
going  to  build  these  roads?    We  demand  of  them,  Are  j 
you  trading  and  speculating  on  these  franchises  iu  Wall  j 
street  1  Or  are  you  selling  these  rights,  these  franchises,  , 
or  realizing  on  them,  just  as  you  gamble  with  stocks  iu  | 
the  stock  market  ?    They  have  not  done  anything  j 
yet,  and  they  cao  never  be  forced  to  do  anything,  un- 
less you  upset  the  Government  by  a  revolution.'  The 
law  cannot  do  it.   The  Legislature  cannot  do  it.  A 
Constitutional  Convention  cannot  do  it.   There  is  no 
power  to  do  it.  Revolution  !   Kevolution  alone  stands  1 
between  you  and  me  and  the  execution  of  these  fran-  \ 
chises  so  much  needed,  so  much  called  for  by  the  peo- 
ple, as  you  are  told  bi'  tne  Governor  iu  tis  auuual  j 
message"  of  1860.   These  gentlemen,  who  are  the  j 
grantees  of  these  rights,  I  understand,  make  hand-  ' 
somely  out  of  them  by  selling  them.    I  understand 
that  $5,000  is  deemed  to  be  a  fair  price  in  the  market. 
Precisely  how  it  is  divided,  or  how  it  is  mixed  up,  I 
confess  I  cannot  undertake  to  state.   Nobody  can  who  i 
is  willing  to  do  it.    I  nodce  the  name  of  Wm.  A.  Hall  \ 
iu  one  of  these  acts.    I  do  kuow  what  became  of  his  j 
fi-anchise.    Wm.  A.  Hall  is  one  of  nature's  noblemen ; 
he  didn't  know  that  his  name  was  in  this  bill  till  after  | 
it  was  passed.   After  the  adjournment  of  the  LegiJa-  I 
lature  the  father  of  the  lobby  came  to  him  and  said:  \ 
"  You  see  your  name  is  in  this  bill;  we  want  a  little  ; 
money."     "Money!    What  for?"'  said  Mr.  Hall  | 
*'  Oh,"'  said  he;  "  you  kuow  these  things  cost;  these  i 


things  cost— it  is  very  valuable,  Mr.  Hall."  Well, 
Mr.  Hall  declined  to  pay  any  money.  The  veteran 
then  applied  to  Mr.  Hall  to  sell  out  his  riglits  under 
the  act— offered  him  $3,000.  Mr.  Hall  declined.  Mr. 
Hall  then  began  to  consider  what  he  should  do 
with  this  unexpected  acquisition.  There  is,  genrlemen, 
in  the  City  of  New-Y''ork  a  society  for  the 
reformation,  protection,  and,  in  some  degree,  support  of 
titose  persons  of  the  other  sex  who  have  been  aban- 
doned to  vice  and  crime.  At  the  head  of  that 
institution,  is  the  daughter  of  that  veteran  re- 
former, now  no  more,  who  exhibited  in  our  time  the 
valor  and  the  piety  of  ancient  heroes,  Isaac  T.  Hopper. 
It  is  refreshing  to  speak  of  personal  virtues  and  touch 
on  lofty  themes,  iu  the  connection  in  which  I  am  now 
speaking,  for  I  have  been  leading  you  through  a  laby- 
rinth "  of  darkness,"  as  darkness  itself,  where  the  very 
light  is  darkness.  When  we  contemplate  one  bright 
spot,  it  is  a  repose  to  the  heart — i*;  softens  and  subdues 
us.  Well,  gentlemen,  Mr.  Hall  thought  he  would  do 
what  good  he  could  with  this  waif  of  sin  thus  be- 
stowed upon  him.  What  he  had  received  by  the  craft 
of  abandoned  men  he  hastened  to  bestow  for  the  bene- 
fit of  abandoned  women.  He  assigns  all  his  interest 
to  this  institution,  and  from  this  franchise,  God  grant 
that  many  a  poor  child  of  sin  and  sorrow 
may  find*  that  repose,  at  the  close  of  a  life 
of  want  and  shame,  which  may  lead  to  brighter  Hopes, 
than  any  of  these  witked  men  who  bestowed  on  him 
that  franchise,  can  ever  hope  to  find.  That  is  what  . 
became  of  one  of  these  franchises — it  will  go  for  the  ' 
benefit  of  these  poor  sufferers,  those  who  are  sinned 
against  as  well  as  sinning;  and  if  any  effort  of  mine 
can  ever  assist  to  wrest  it  from  the  ha'nds  of  those  who 
are  now  cheapening  it  in  the  market,  and  augment  it 
to  its  full  value  for  them,  it  shall  be  most  freely  be- 
stowed. Now,  geutlem^i  there  must  have  been 
some  motive  for  takin»  this  property  and  giving  it  to 
these  individuals.  Wnat  do  you  suppose  was  the  mo- 
tive of  Mr.  Littlejohn  in  doing  it  ?  On  the  3d  of  April, 
I  think,  these  bills  passed  the  House  of  Assembly 
and  the  Senate,  and  wete  sent  to  the  Governor  for 
his  sanction.  On  the  IGth  he  retui-ned  them,  with 
his  veto  message,  which  was  read  to  you 
last  night,  in  which  he  sets  forth  their 
enormities  in  language  of  the  sternest  rebuke, 
using  the  word  "  flagrant,"  which  is  almost  the  only 
adjective  used  to  enhance  the  word  wicked;  '■'•Jia^rant 
wickedness"  is  probably  the  most  intense  expression  in 
our  language.  "  These  Jla grant 2Lctt^,"  he&ays,  and  he 
repeats  the" word.  He  says  "  this  franchise  is  in  per- 
petuity.' This  message  'is  read  in  Mr.  Littlejohn's 
hearing;  and  after  the  reading,  he  leaves  this  lofty 
station  where  he  sits,  as  I  have  said,  like  the  lady  in 
the  masque,  "  lofty,  spotless,  and  serene;"  becomes 
down  to  the  floor  of  the  House,  and  mingles  in  debate, 
advocating  the  measures,  and  by  virtue,  of  the  pecu- 
liar hold  he  has  on  that  body  of  men  through  whatever 
appliances  it  may  have  been  brought  into  exercise,  he 
carries  the  measure  over  the  veto  of  the  Governor. 
In  England,  and  I  refer  to  Engli^h  legisla- 
tion as  a  model  always,  so  far  as  the  purity 
of  legislation  Is  concerned;  in  England  the 
veto  power  has  been  used  but  three  times  in 
more  than  two  centuries.  It  exists  there  as  it  does 
here.  In  this  Government  Presidents  have  lived  * 
through  their  four  years'  of  office  without  vetoing  a  » 
single" measure,  and  down  to  a  late  period  vetoes  were 
uncommon.  I  challenge  the  histor  ian  to  show  a  single 
veto  of  a  measure  of  any  character  which  was  not  put 
upon  politicel  grounds.  '  But  is  there  any  politics  here  1 
Nearly  half  the  corporators  are  Democrats,  and  the 
rest  Republicans.  It  was  voted  for  alike  by  both 
parties,  as  you  were  shown  last  night.  No  politics 
here.  In  Gen.  Jackson's  time  the  attempt  was  made 
to  pass  a  bill  over  his  veto,  because,  tbey  sai_d,_  "  Gen. 
Jackson  represents  one  class  of  political  opinions,  we 
represent  another  class  of  political  opinions,  we  labor 


19 


■I:at  our  party  and  political  principles  may  prevail,  the 
bill  in  (j[uestion  rejiresents  a  great  political  principle." 
Why  did  the  member  from  Oswego  take  flie  pains  to 
come  down  out  of  bis  chair  and  advocate 
the  passage  of  measures  that  were  mainly 
financial — ([uestioiis  of  franc1)ises  worth  money? 
Was  any  political  principle  involved  ?  Any 
State  or  p'arty  politics  at  stake  ?  Yes,  we  are  told 
there  was.  Mr.  Littlejohn,  in  his  speech,  in  which  he 
vindicated  himself  from  the  imputations  of  various 
newspapers — The  Post,  The  2' ivies,  Herald,  Tuiu- 
u.vE,  &-C. — tells  you  that  there  was.  He  says  he 
was  "opposed  to  selling  franchises."  Why?  ''be- 
cause," he  says,  "if  you  sell  the  franchises,  those 
who  build  the  roads  w;ll  have  to  raise  on  the  fare;  and 
I  go  in  for  the  iaboving  classes."  For  the  "toiling 
poor  "  is  his  well  mounding  phrase.  "  Thev  who  live 
and  work  in  New- York  ought  to  go  the  whole  length 
of  that  city  for  five  cents,  and  it  we  sell  the  fran- 
chises, they  will  raise  the  fare."  Wliy,  Mr.  Little- 
john, your  bill  provides  that  it  shall  not  be  above 
five  cents.  You  know — it  is  history — that  these 
railroad  corporations  are  the  most  lucrative  that 
the  world  ever  saw.  It  ie  history.  You  go  in 
for  the  "toiling  poor"?  Why  didn't  you  just 
take  hold  and  cut  that  fare  down  to  three  cents? 
Nay,  why  did  you  oppose  that  measure  when  it  was 
pressed  by  othei';?.  There  weie  men  in  New-York  who 
oifered  to  come  forward  and  pledge  themselves — give 
security  to  biiild  the  roads  and  run  them  in  the  best 
manner,  for  three  cents  a  passenger.  This  was  well 
known.  It  was  stated  in  the  House  over  and  over 
again,  in  the  hearing  of  Mr.  Littlejohn,  and  published 
in  the  New- York  papers  again  and  again.  Tbe  gen- 
tlemen who  came  forward  and  offered  half  a  million  for 
one  road  m  1859,  were  still  ready,  cash  in  band.  In 
1860,  over  two  millions  could  have  been  obtained.  The 
wealthiest  men  in  the  city  offered  this,  money  down, 
for  these  franchises,  with  pledges  of  every  kind  that 
could  have  secured  the  community  against  abuse.  Why 
did'nt  you  go  in  for  that  ?  If  not  that,  then  something 
of  this  kind  ?  You  might  have  done  it.  Don't  skulk 
from  the  issue  by  debating  witb  the  Governor,  whether 
the  grants  are  in  perpetuity.  Answer  this  if  you  can. 
We  shall  hear  what  his  counsel  will  say  toit^  Well, 
gentlemen,  if  you  can  find  any  motive  for  Mr.  Little- 
john's  conduct  on  that  occasion  that  can  help  his  case 
you  will  find  it.  Let  the  counsel  on  the  other  side  find 
It  if  they  can.  But  he  did  give  one  more  reason  for  it. 
The  Governor  in  his  veto  message  after  speaking  of 
rendering  these  valuable  franchises  a  source  of  income 
to  the  city.    He  gays: 

"  Again,  tte  bills  to  which  I  am  constrained  to  interpose  my 
objections  are  grants  of  power  in  perpetuity.  Ordinary  prudence 
would  suggest  that  this  should  be  avoided.  Powers  that  are 
useful  to  day,  under  the  changing  circumstances  of  communities, 
and  of  municipal  operations,  may  a  few  years  hence  become  ob- 
jectionable. Hence  it  is  that  the  exclusive  benefits  of  patents  are 
limited  ;  the  existence  of  corjfcrations  circumscribed  within  cer- 
tain periods ;  lerry  franchises  defined  and  restricted.  The  ivhole 
genius  of  our  Government  requires  that  privileges  graiited,  espe- 
cially those  of  pecuniary  value,  or  attecting  the  public  conven- 
ience, shall,  after  a  certain  time,  cease,  and  the  power  of  revision 
and  amendment  be*  exercised  in  accordance  with  the  require- 
ments of  public  interest. 

"  But  the  privileges  conferred  in  these  acts,  authorizing  in 
Bpme  cases  the  entire  engrossment  of  streets,  are  without  limita- 
tion ;  and  if,  at  any  future  time,  the  use  of  these  public  avenues 
should  be  demanded  for  other  purposew,  there  is  no  determinate 
period  to  which  the  inhabitants  or  corporate  authorities  could 
look  for  a  cessation  of  tJie  privileges  now  granted.  Nor  is  there 
any  power  reserved  on  the  part  of  the  Legislature  to  alter,  modify, 
or  repeal  these  grants,  however  flagrant  shall  be  the  abuses  which 
may  grow  up  under  them. 

Nor  is  there  any  provision  in  these  bills  prescribing  a  time 
within  which  the  proposed  railroads  shall  be  constructed. 

"  Secure  in  the  privileges  confened,  the  parties  in  interest  may 
delay  action  to  such  time  as  their  own  convenience  shall  be  best 
subserved.  In  the  mean  time,  the  immunities  granted  may  be  the 
subject  of  constant  barter  and  sale,  without  the  slightest  accruing 
advantage  to  the  public." 

"  But  the  GoveiTior  was  mistaken,"  says  Mr.  Little- 
john; "  he  had  not  looked  far  enough  into  the  Consti-  > 


tution.    I,  a  pcor  legislator  and  a  very  humble  man, 
have  looked  farther  into  it."  Tbe  Coi  Btituiio  i  is  writ- 
ten on  two  01-  three  pages  of  paper,  every  pu  )lic  man 
knows  it  by  heart.    Yoii  know  it  as  you  know  \our 
calecVistr.    "But  the  Governor  had  not  looked  into 
the  Consti. ution."    ]Mr.  Littlejohn  bad  looked  further, 
and  he  says  they  are  not  in  perfietuity,  because  article 
8,  section  3,  provides  that  jnint-stoclc  corporations  and 
associations  sball  be  included  in  the  word  corporation. 
^^'hy,  gentlemen,  tbp  word  company  or  association  is 
not  named  in  these  bills  !    Th^-re  is  rio  decent  pretense 
for  sayirg  that  these  acts  create  joint-stock  companies  or 
associations  within  the  constitutional  provisiiui.  No 
more  pretenee  than  than  there  would  be  for  saving  that 
a  pecuniary  note,  reading  ' '  for  value  received,  I  promise 
to  pay  .John  Doe  and  Richard  Roe  five  hundred  dollars" 
creates  a  corporation  or  joint-stock  company.  They 
are  no  more  within  the  constitutional  provision  than 
they  are  witbin  tlje  ten  commandments.    I  don't  give 
Mr.  Speaker  Littlejohn  much  credit  for  that  subterfuge, 
it  only  adds  stu]iidity  to  profligacy.  Why,  <Ud  he  think 
so  ?    Then  I  will  tell  you  what  I  think  a  good  legisla- 
tor, what  I  think  an  honest  man,  would  liava  done  iu 
i  thote  circurnstancee.    He  would  say,  "  Why,  Gov. 
'  Morgan  says  these  are  grants  in  peri)etuity;   I  guess 
i  Gov.  Morgan  knows  of  article  8th,  and  section  Sd;  and 
j  the  law  which  governs  joint  stock  companies.    I  am 
not  a  lawyer;  but  the  Governor,  he  has  by  his  side  the 
law  officer  of  the  State — the  Attorney-General.  The 
Governor  has  not  said  this  in  a  public  document  which 
I  is  to  live  foreyer,  without  looking  into  it.    I  think  I 
.  had  better  look  into  it.  I  will  take  tbe  advice  of  coun 
i  sel  learned  in  the  law."    Don't  yoa  think  an  honest 
man"s  mind  would  have  run  in  that  groove  of  Thought  I 
Don't  you  think  he  would  have  taken  that  view  of  it  ? 
I  There  is  not  a  lawyer  in  the  State  of  New-York,  who 
has  any  character  to  lose,  but  would  have  laugb- 
'  ed  at  the  question — not  one  !    But  this  is  Mr.  Little- 
john's  apology  for  this;  nay,  bis  "  defense  "  uttered 
nearly  six  months  alter  the  passage  of  the  bill.  He 
had    six    months  to  get  his  answer  or  apology 
'•  ready.       But    he    did    not    apologise  ;    he  said 
in  siibstance:  "  I  voted  right,  the"  bill  was  right  and 
j  ought  to  have  been  passed."    He  justified  himself  for 
i  doing  what  he  did.    Six  months  after;  with  all  the 
:  flood  of  light  which  had  been  thrown  upon  it,  that  is 
the  best  subterfuge  he  can  devise.   Then  he  came  for- 
!  ward — true  to  his  company  of  forty — and  vhidicates 
i  the  measure,  and  says  it  was  rigbt.   That  was  tbe  un- 
■  kindest  cut  of  all.   If  he  had  said  at  this  time,  "  I  re- 
I  pent:  I  did  not  miderstand  this;  I  was  mistaken;  this 
{  has  given  franchit-es^of  inestimable  value  to  those  gran- 
tees.   They  are  selling  out,  and  getting  $5,000, 110,000 
j  and  Slo.OOO  a  share.   I  think  I  did  a  little  wrong."  It 
would  have  softened  the  case  souiewbat,  and  it'would 
have  tended  to  show  that  he  was  more  dupe  than  profli- 
gate.   Didn't  he  know  at  the  time  he   voted  for 
these  measures  that  there  were    men    in  New- 
Yoik   ready   to  give  enormous   sums   for  what  he 
was  bestowing  for  nothing      Mr.  Conkliiig,  who  sits 
over  yonder  will  tell  you  that  he  raised  his  voice 
in  the  hearing  of  Littlejohn;    and  iliat  he  pro- 
tested against  this  profligate  legielai ion;  he  came  for- 
ward and  said:  here  are  millions  ready  to  be  given  by 
the  most  substantial  men  in  New-Yoi'k  ready  to  bind 
themselves  to  aid  "  the  toiling  poor,"  for  whom  Mr. 
Littlejohn  has  such  sympathy.    The  feeling  among 
our  best  citizens  went  so  far  that  a  Judge  of  the  Court 
of  Appeals  came  down  from  his  high  seat,  and  drew  a 
bill  which  was  ]uesented  in  the  House  and  presented 
in  tbe  Senate;  it  was  conmiented  upon  and  urged  iu 
debate  and  through  the  press,  as  the  bill  under  which 
these  railroad  grants  ought  to  be  made.   It  provided 
that  these  franchises,  under  certain  circumstances, 
should    go  to   tliose    who  would    tome  forward 
and  give  the  largest  sums  and  the  best  assurances 
of  speedy   and    beneficial   uge   to  the  public  and 
which  should  most  iuuie  to  the  benefit  of  the  city 


20 


and  the  S'ate.  It  was  admiiaMy  drawn  and  it 
\uet  the  public  approval  It  would_  have  left  in 
your  }»oekets  and  mine,  in  connnon  with  the  people 
of  the  city  and  the  State,  the  benefits  of  these  millions 
— and  would  have  .aiveii  us  the  needed  railroads  into 
the  bargain.  Why  "didn't  'Mr.  Liftlejohn  vote  for  that  ? 
and  if  there  was  any  provision  he  didn't  like,  why  not 
amend  it  ?  He  was  powerful  and  could  do  it,  and  malie 
it  right,  if  in  an 3'  respect  he  thoui^lit  it  wrong.  It  i>-ave 
the  State  and  the  people  the  benefit  of  these  franchises. 
■\Vas  it  theiis  of  light '/  or  had  the  lobby  earned  them, 
simply  by  having  spejit  the  whole  Winter  in  Alhany  ? 
There  are  Mr.  Littlejohn's  brother  and  his  brother-in- 
l  iw,  both  at  Albany.  They  are  there  in  the  House, 
inside  the  railing,  silting  with  the  members,  and  talk- 
ing with  the  mimb  -rs'and  sometimes  tliey  whisper 
together,  and  then  very  (|uietly  go  out  toyetheq  How 
came  he  wirhin  thi-  circle  tber-e,  Fredeiick  Ss^Little- 
j'thn  ?  He  came  with  a  pass  from  the  Speaker.  And 
there  is  Dr.  Thompson  of  Quarantine  memory,  how 
came  he  to  be  there?  Look  into  his  hands  and  you 
will  see  a  pass  from  the  Speaker. 

Mr.  FosTKR — I  ask  the  counsel  by  what  authority 
he  says  that  Fredeii  .k  S.  Littlejohn  and  Dr.  Thousp- 
son  had  authority  to  come  on  the  floor  by  u  p-iit^r  iiom 
the  Speaker  ? 
Mr.  WiLLiA^r? — We  will  prove  it,  Sir. 
j\Ir.  Foster — Very  well,  go  on  then. 
Mr.  Williams — The  counselis  nervous  on  the  sub- 
ject of  Frederick  S.  Littlejohn  !    He  knew  he  ought 
i;!)t  to  have  been  there.    He  was  a  wolf  among  the 
sheer.    Counsel  repel  the   imputation  that    he  got 
there  by  the  aid  of  Sfjeaker  Littlejohn.  You  know  that 
r.o  man  gets  on  to  the  floor  of  the  House  among  the 
mem'-ers  without  a  pass  from  the  Speaker.  Lawyers, 
while  attending  the  Court  of  Appeals,  and  citizens 
whose  honest  business  culls  them  to  Albany,  hang 
aroand  the  railing  to  see  what  is  going  on  in  there; 
but  no  Speaker  yives  a  pass  to  men  of  that  stamp. 
Fiedeiick  S.  Liulejohn  gets  $40,000  of.  the  sto.  k  of 
cue  of  these  roads.  Dr.  Thompson  gets  $10,000.  What 
is  it  given  for?    What  has  Frederick  S.  Lit  l»rjohn 
done  to  to  get  $40,000  in  stock,  which  I  say  is  worth 
more  than  par?    What  has  Dr.  Richard  H. 'Thompson 
of  Brooklyn — you  know  hmi  by  reputation — what  has 
he  done  to  get  $40,000  ?    I  wonder  if  it  will  not  turn 
out — I  don't  know  that  it  will,  for  we  d  -n't  select 
our  witnesses;  tbey  don't  come  and  tell  Horace  Gree- 
ley what   thev  w'iil  testify— but  I  wonder,  if  in- 
stead of— 40.0:j0  and  40,000  makes  80,000— there  was 
not  $120,000  appropriated  to  the  L'ttlejohu  family  ? 
I  don't  know  that  there  was;  we  are  in  tL,e  enemies' 
camp  so  far  as  getting  information  is  concerned;  but 
I  think  we  shall  prove  it.    We  don'c  think  it  is 
a   trifling    matter   for   a    man    to   go   into  the 
balls  of  leuislation,  and  sit  down  with  a  member  and 
converse  about  a  bill  he  is  about  to  pass.     I  don't  see 
why  a  legislator  should  not  be  as  discreet  as  a  Judge, 
or  as  caieful  net  to  be  influenced  by  selfish  motives,  or 
by  others'  unworthy  motives,  as  the  learned  Judge  on 
the  Bench.    And,  gentlemen,  there  is  not  one  among 
you,  who  would  not  turn  pale  at  seeing  that  done  in 
the  Judiciary,  which  Mr.  Littlejohn  certainly  did  per- 
mit to  be  doi  e  every  day  iu  a  legislutive  body.    If  you 
should  see  a  sight  o*f  that  kind,  gentlemen,  you  would 
say,  "  The  legislaiive  body  is  gone,  I  know,  but  I 
didn't  know  that  the  Judiciaiy  was.    I  thought,  I 
dreamed.  I  believed  that  that  was  pure  and  upright 
etilh"    The  General  Government  is  menaced  by  foes 
from  without,  but  the  State  has  a  foe  within,  more  in- 
sidious and   more  dreadful,  more  desolating,  more 
destructive  to  the  liberties  of  the  people,  more  sub- 
versive of  Government.     Read  the  histoiy  of  falling 
empires,  and  learn  the  dreadful  lesson  this  trial  is  cal- 
culated to  teach  you. 

But,  gentlemen,  I  have  detained  you  long  enough  on 
this  question ;  let  me  })a8S  to  another  bill,  not  so  dread- 
ful in  its  ultimate  importance,  but  upon  which  I  think 


the  proof  will  be  equally  strong.    I  mean  the  "  West 
Washington  Market  bill.  '    A  word  of  history  here, 
tljat  you  may  understand  it.    The  city  is  bounded 
on  an  old    map,    by   certain   water   bounds  and 
limits.    It  happened  some  years  ago  that  some  persons 
desired  to  obtain  the  right  to  run  out  some  piers  into 
the  North  River,  he&v  what  is  now  the  West  Wash- 
ington Jlnrket,  and  the  privilege  was  granted  to  them. 
They  used  these  piers  for  some  years,  when,  by  some 
current  of  the  river,  accretions  began  to  form,  and  by 
and  by  these  places  began  to  get  too  shallow  for  large 
vessels,  aiid  finally  l)ecame  almost  useless.  The  city  con- 
ceived the  idea  of  filling  them  up  and  makiugland  out  to 
the  end  of  the  piers.    Well,  the  city  fillud  taemup  and 
made  the  land  in  (iue8ti(m,  wldch  is  worth  to-day  near- 
ly or  quite  $2,000,000.    The  city  filled  it  up,  but  know- 
ing that  the  title  was  m  the  State  by  liw,  though  the  \ 
State  does  not  always  claim  land  thus  created,  they  did 
not  put  up  any  large  buildings  upon  it;  but  simply 
shanties  which  they  rented  from  time  to  time,  tiU  the 
city  got  about  $40,000  a  year  from  the  land.  The  rents 
of  these  lands  were  afterward  adjudged  to  be  worth 
$108,000  a  year,  all  of  which  belonged  to  the  State,  and 
should  have  been  paid  into  the  State  treasury.  This 
]>roperty  so  wrested  fromi  the  ocean,  belonged  to  the 
State  by  the  law  of  the  land.   The  State  then  liad  in 
that  property  about  $2,000,000  iu  value;  and  you 
and   1    had'  an    interst    in    it    as    citizens  of 
the  State.    In  1855  the  Harbor  Commissioners  re- 
ported to  the  Legislature  that  the  land  belonged  / 
to  the  State,  and  that  the  city  was  receiving  the  profits 
from  it.    On  that  commission  was  ex- Gov.  Patterson 
and  John  L.  Talcott  of  Buftalo,  one  of  the  ablest  law- 
yers of  the  time.    There  was  no  doubt  about  the  title 
of  the  State;  and  the  Land  Commissioners  were  called 
upon  to  take  the  land;  but  for  some  reason  they  omit- 
ted to  do  it,  until  the  24th  of  April,  1858,  when  an  ap- 
plication was  made  iu  writing  by  James  B.  Taylor  and 
Owen  W.  Brennan,  to  the  Board  of  the  Commissioners 
of  the  Land  Oflice,  which  consists  of  ex-oflicio  mem- 
bers of  the  Government — the  Attorney  General,  the 
Speaker  of  the  House,  and  vaiious  others.   They  said 
this  property  belongs  to  the  State,  that  they  desired 
a  lease  for  a  year,  and  would  give  you  $5,000  a  year 
quarterly  in  advance.    The  same'  day,  hour,  'and 
minute  *  perhaps,     t»  is   body  passed   a  resolution 
giving  a  lease  to  Taylor  and   Brennan,  for  one  N 
year,   at    a   rent   of  "  $5,000,    payable  quarterly 
in    advance,    and     they    directed     the  deputy 
Secretary  of  State  to  execute  a  lease  accordingly. 
After  thi's,  Taylor  and  Brennan  discovered  that  the  city 
being  in  posses^iou  they  mio^ht  have  some  difliculty  in 
getting  possession.    They  tnought  it  was  well  enough 
to  have  fiom  the  State  a  covenant  of  quiet  enjoyment 
and  p('S>eh..-3on  of  it.    So  th-y  went  to  the  Deput'y  Sec- 
retary of  State,  and  by  some  means — rumor  tells 
what* — got    him   to   insert   iu  the   lease  a  coven- 
ant   of  quiet   ei  joyment,  *stich   a   covenant    ob-  • 
tained    ffom   this  'lunctionaryj    and,    not  being 
given  by  the  Board  in  the  resolution,  was  utterly  void. 
Still  the  Board  seem  to  have  been  very  friendly  I  They 
pass  a  !esoluti(m  continuing  the  lease*  as  long  as  the 
State    sha  1  hold  the  property,  or  until  otherwise 
disLOsed  of.    Soon  another,    a*  resolution  is  adopted . 
conveying  to  Taylor  and  Brennan  all  claim  against  the 
ciry  and  others  for  back  rents  of  tlie  premises  in  ques- 
tio'n,  in  consideration  that  they,  by  a  bond  executed  by 
themselves,  will  indemnify  the  State  against  costs. 
They  seem  to  have  a  perfect  understanding  with  the 
Board!    By  and  by  they  commenced  suits  against  the 
city — one  a'eaiust  the  city  and  all  the  tenants,  184  in 
number;  but,  notwithstanding  this  bond  of  indetanity 
against  costs  to  the  State,  the  Attorney-General  al  ways 
appears  with  their  attorney  in  these  suits.    After  a 
while,  that  Board  of  Commissioners  find  that  they 
have  done  ratlier  a  striking  thing,  fur  no  consideration, 
but  this  bond  to  indemnify  the  State  against  liability, 
which  could  not  at  the  most  haye  amounted  to  bat  a 


very  trifling  sum.  Chief  Justice  Bronson  says  he  has 
done  more  work  for  one  dollar  than  this  bond  in  fact 
indemnified  the  State  againet.  The  Board  had  by  thi^j 
resolution  (if  valid)  civen  away  the  back  vf-uie  since 
1S53,  amounting  to  over  a  half  million  dollars  for  which 
the  city  of  Xew-York  wasiuevitably  liable;  for  a  bond 
of  indemnity  to  the  State  against"  lia-'  ilities  which  it 
never  could  incur,  and  which  never  co  ild  be  enforced 
againgt  it,  for  you  cannot  sue  a  State.  Tiiey  found  they 
had  gone  a  little  too  far,  to  they  parsed  a  resolution 
rescinding  the  former  one  and  confined  the  back  rents 
to  the  period  of  the  date  of  the  lease.  But  you  observe 
il  the  first  resolution  had  any  validity,  the  second  one 
wasthe  merest  twaddle  that  ever  fell  from  the  lipsor  pen 
of  man.  "A  "  bargains  with  "  B,"  who  gives  him  a 
consideration  for  a  bond  that  is  satisfactory  and  after- 
ward "A,"  backs  out  of  the  bargain.  An  individual 
cannot  do  that,  and  the  State  cannot  do  that.  If  the  first 
resolution  was  valid  it  will  stand  forever  and  secure. 
Then,  without  any  consideration  at  all,  some-how  or 
other,  Taj  lor  and  Brennan  got  a  lease  of  these  pre- 
mises worth  $108,000  a  year,  so  long  as  the  State  should 
own  them  for  §5,000  a  year,  and  all  tlie  back  rents 
amouu'ing  to  over  lialf  a  million  of  dollars.  After 
this  came  Mr.  Littlejol.n  into  office  as  Ez-officio 
member  of  the  Board  of  Commissioners.  Now,  gentle- 
men, observe,  up  to  this  time  the  covenaiit  of  (|uiel 
enjoyment,  conraiued  in  the  original  lease  was 
utterly  void.  It  never  had  any  sanction  whatever 
by  the  Board.  It  was  put  in  the  lease  by 
Mr.  Morton!  "  \Miat  private  grief  be  had,  I 
i  know  not;  he  is  wise  and  honorable;  per}iaj)s 
he  will,  with  reason,  answer  you."  Up  to  this  time 
^  Taylor  and  Brennan  had  no  covenant  for  quiet  enjoy- 
I  ment  or  possession  of  the  land.  Up  to  this  lime  the 
I  State  had  not  agreed  to  join  to 'fight  his  battles 
through,  if  indeed  thare  was  any  battle  to  fight.  Mr. 
Littlejohn  goes  into  ofiice,  andiimong  his  earliest  acfs 
at  the  pioper  time  he  rises  in  the  Board  of 
Commissions  and  proposes  a  resolution,  renewing 
the  lease  for  the  term  of  a  year,  making  it  end  in  1860 
sometime,  upon  "the  same  terms,  conditions,  and  cov- 
enants contained  in  the  former  leape."  That  resolution 
pat-sed,  and  under  that  they  e.\ei  ured  the  first  lease  tliat 
was  valid,  hy  which  they  compelled  the  State  to  figlit 
through  the  battles  of  Taylor  and  Brennan,  and  eti'ectu- 
ally  ^iixe  them  for  §5,000  wha^  was  really  woith 
$lo8,(i00.  That  second  lease,  which  was  given  under 
Mr.  Littlejohn's  resolutiun,  and  bears  date  the  3d  of 
May,  1859,  conveyed  the  title  which  the  act  in  ques- 
tion compelled  the  Controller  to  p^urchase  Taylor  and 
Brennan.  Taylor  and  Brennan  are  now  in  a  pretty 
good  fix.  They  have  got  a  title  to  all  the  back  rents — 
some  kind  of  a  title  at  any  rate.  They  have  got  the 
sanction  of  the  Board  for  a  lease,  with  cov- 
enants of  quiet  enjoyment  of  the  premises. 
They  have  remarkablv  good  luck  in  ge  ting  through 
these  suits.  Let  us  follow  them  through  it.  Mr. 
Littlejohn's  resolution,  under  wt  ich  they  got  their 
title,  was  passed  on  the  3d  of  May,  1859.  'On  the  14th 
of  May,  Taylor  and  Brennan  commenced  suits.  On 
the  ■-24ih  of  May  they  recovered  a  judgment  by  default 
against  the  city,  lor  the  possession  of  this'  land  in 
question,  and  'lor  $69,108  45.  That  judgment  was 
entered  on  motion  of  John  II.  Piatt,  Attorney  for 
Taylor  and  Brennan,  and  Lyman  Tremain,  Attorney- 
General  of  the  State  of  New- York.  October  Gth,  a 
second  judgment  by  default  was  entered  against 
the  city  of  New-York  for  $49,629  80  on  mo- 
tion 01  Mr.  Piatt,  Attorney  for  Taylor  and 
Brennan,  and  Mr.  Tremain,  Atfornej^-Gen.  A  third 
judgment  was  entered  December,  18o9,  on  the  report 
of  three  referees,  for  $54,196  i39;  it  was  entered  on  a 
report  bearing  date  1  )ecember  10,  on  motion  of  Piatt 
alone.  The  next  judgment,  which  was  the  judgment 
for  back  rents,  beginning  back  from  the  time  the 
city  first  began  to  occupy  the  premises,  up  to  the  com- 
mencement of  the  suit,  was  eiitered  December  15, 


1850,  on  report  of  referees,  on  morion  of  Piatt,  for 
$483,194  14— ihete  four  judgments  n.aking  an  aggre- 
gate of  $659,12.)  28.    You  see  at  a  j^lance  how  that 

■  judgment  was  obtained.  If  you  occupy  my  premise?, 
and  you  let  them  to  the  gentleman  next  to  you,  and  he 
pay-;  you  the  rent,  I  can  sue  you  and  recover  all  the 
money  he  ha?  paid  you,  as  money  h-id  and  received 
f^r  uiy  benefit.  All  the  rent'  which  the  Cify  of 
New-York  had  already  got,  for  the  use  of  the 
premises,  or  what  it  was  reasouaidy  worth,  the  city 
was  liable  to  Taylor  &.  Brennan,  for  under  that  reso- 
lution. These  referees  reported,  upon  their  oath,  ihat 
these  premises  were  worth  $108,000  a  year;  and  they 
gave  judgn.ent  at  that  rate.  Well,  gentlemen,  here 
we  are;  here  are  judgments  agiinst  the  City  of  New- 
York  amounting  to  over  $659,000,  in  favor  of  Taylor 

Brennan,  on"  the  docket.    There  they  stand  and 
Taylor  &.  Brennan  have  a  lease  stil.  unexpired.  There 
we' are  in  the  Autumn  of  1859  and  at  the  commmence- 
meiit  of  the  session  of  1860.    Tnere  we  are  when  Mr. 
Littlejohn  is  made  Speaker;  witii  absolute  power  to 
appoint  the  Committees  just  as  he  pleases.   I  don't 
,  know  but  that  statement  needs  some  qualification; 
;  that  Lobby  is  a  powerful  body  of  men.    Its  head  is 
i  sometimes  called  '*  The  Dictator."    But  there  we  are; 

this  property  owntd  by  the  State,  worth  $J,C00,OUO, 
I  and  Taylor  &  Brennan  have  judgments  under  their 
i  leases  for  $659,000  and  u[)ward.   \Ve  go  into  the  Legie« 
I  lature  under  this  sttite  of  things.    What  do  you  sup- 
I  pose  now  takes  place  ?    I  want  you  to  reconcile  this 
I  conduct  of  Air.  Littlejohn.  which  I  am  about  to  detail 
I  to  you,  with  legislative  purity,  with  legit-lative  decency, 
j  if  you  have  the  means — if  you  know  how.    Here  is  au 
1  act  which"  is  entitled,  if  the  Court  please,  entitled  "  Aa 
act  to  authorize  the  sale  of  cei  tain  lands  belonging 
to  the  State,  and  to  empower  the  Corporation  of  the 
I  City  of  New-York  to  purchase  the  same,  '  passed 
April  17,  18i.0,  notwithstanding  the  objections  of  the 
i  Governor.  [The  counsel  read  from  the  \^'est  Washing- 
!  ton  Market  bill,  referring  parti  ularly  to  the  seventh, 
j  section.]    That  bill  is  what  the  learned  gentleman  last 
'  night  called  the  "  West  Washington  Market  bill.  "  That 
bill  first  pasted  on  the  3d  of  April,  1860.  Taylor  &  Breu' 
nan  were  there  with  their  whole  following,  where  they 
had  been  during  the  entire  Winter  l;ibo:ing  for  the 
passage  of  this  bill,  and  incidentally  no  doubt  for  ti;e 
other  bills — the  railroad  acts;  the  proporal  probably 
was  with  the  master  of  the  Lobby  and  Mr.  Littlejohn, 
"  Don't  you  oppose  my  bill  for  payiug  my  judgments, 
and  I  won't  op['Ose  your  bi'l  for  gettiuu  the  railroad 
franchises."  At  all  events,  such  a  proposition  was  prac- 
tically acceded  to.  And  so  they  went  on ;  tbey  were  love- 
ly and  pleasant  in  their  lives,  and  in  their  death  perhaps 
they  will  not  be  divided.    They  went  into  the  Legisla- 
ture hand  in  hand,  they  succeeded  on  the  same  day, 
their  bills  stood  side  by  side  in  the  public  archives  and 
the  pu'-'lic  prints,  fortune  favoitd  them  alike,  alike 
triumphant  over  the  Governor's  veto,  alike  aided 
through  by  Mr.  Littlejohn,  with  the  aid  of  all  tlie 
Lobbv  machinery  and  Lobby  appliances;  alike  in  both 
cases  lie  left  the'Speaker's  chair  to  advocate  their  pas- 
sage over  the  Governor  s  veto,  in  bothinstances  attack- 
ing the  Governor,  alike  voting  for  both  on  the  same  day. 
Now,  what  excuse  Mr.  Littlejohn  may  have  for  tlus 
conduct  I  shall  not  attempt  to  conjecture;  1  leave 
that  to  him  and  his  able  though  sensitive  and  troubled 
counsel;  it  is  their  duty  to  explain,  palliate,  justify,  if 
they  can.    I  will  tell  you  one  or  two  difficulties  in  the 
I  way  of  getting  through  with  any  rational  justification 
of  that  bill.    These  judgments  against  tlie  city  were 
obtained  througli  fraud  so  uross  that  they  were  set 
aside  by  a  mo^t  indignant  order  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  State  of  New-York — as  obtained  by  fraud  and 
nothing  else  but  fraud.    They  were  got  hy  def'auli; 

■  the  city  did  not  defend  for  some  reason  or  other ;  they 

i  charged  it  upon  tlie  Corporation  Counsel.  They  charged 
I  he  was  in  the  interest  of  Taylor  «Sc  Biennan.  *If  affida- 
vits are  true  whi-.h  we  have'here,  they  either  prove  it  or 


22 


that  he  was  crippled  in  his  defense  by  the  Commission- 
ers ot  the  Land-Office.  On  the  3d  of  April  these  bills 
came  up  before  the  House  for  passage.  Mr.  Conkling 
and  other  good  and  true  members  of  the  Legitilatare 
had  presented  protests  and  memorials — hut  how  vain ! 
Why  talk  to  men  who  had  all  things,  to  use  their 
own  phrase,  "fixed,"  '■^fixfd?"  They  were  told  that 
the  judyments  were  collusive  and  corrupt,  and  ou^jt 
not  to  be  passed — that  proceedings  were  pending  to 
set  them  as^de.  "Mr.  Xoyes  says  there  is  a  perfect  de- 
fense against  the  actions.  The  Corporation  Couneel, 
JuOge  Bronson,  savs  there  is  a  pertect  defense."  You 
know  Judge  Bronson,  who  T)rLsideci  over  the  Supreme 
Court  for  so  many  years.  "  Mr.  ^IrKec-n  says  they  are 
corru})t,  and  cannot  be  sustained."  Mr.  Conkling  quotes 
all  these  bigli  authoiitit  s.  Wuat  did  Mr.  Littlejohu  do'' 
He  came  down  from  that  }dace,  where  you  remember 
you  saw  him  sitting  so  lofty,  and  so  serene,  and  seem- 
ingly so  spotless — he  came'  down  and  took  the  floor  of 
the  House,  and  there  stated  in  the  hearing  oi  the  coun- 
try that  these  judgments  were  good  and  valid  judg- 
ments; that  the  Controller  of  the  Citv  of  New- York 
favored  the  payment  of  them;  that  Judge  Bronson 
said  they  weje  valid  jitdgments,  and  ought  to  be  paid. 
"I  know  about  this  matter,"  was  his  exclamation. 
"  I  knew  about  this  matter,"  were  the  words  he  used. 
They  were  asked  by  Mr.  Conkling,  "  Why  not  leave  it 
in  the  discretion,  and  not  make  it  the  duty,  of  the  Con- 
troller to  pay  these  judgments."  A  motion  so  to 
modify  the  bill  was  voted  down,  and  the  imperious  di- 
rection retained.  Such  legislation  cannot  be  found  on 
another  statute  book,  either  in  England  or  Ameri- 
ca, It  was  stated  by  counsel,  Mr.  Evarrs, 
"  that  the  Controller,  under  that  act,  could  have  been 
compelled  by  mandamus  to  pay  these  judgments;" 
and  he  would  have  been  compelled  to  pay  ihem,  but 
that  the  judgments  were  fraudulent,  and  ,tOon  set 
a^ide  and  vacated  by  the  Court  for  traud.  No  compro- 
mise was  ottered  or  made  until  they  v^^ere  set  aside. 
But  after  they  were  set  aside,  Taylor  »fe  Brennan, 
knowing  the  matter  would  not  bear  .the  test  of  judicial 
iuvesrigation,  came  in  and  had  a  compromise.  Mr. 
Litilejohn  was  told  aH  thif  was,  and  would  be,  yet 
he  came  down,  and  by  means  oi  statements  which 
had  no  fmndation  in  "fact,  these  bills  were  passed. 
The  next  day  a  letter  was  written  by  Judge  Bronson 
to  the  Governor,  iu  which  Judge  Bronson  expressed 
the  opinion  that  "they  were  fraudulent,  void  and 
ought  not  to  be  paid."  He  referred  to  the  statement 
of  the  Speaker  and  branded  it  as  it  deserved,  and  he 
denies  that  he  ever  said  that  the  judgments  were  valid 
or  ought  to  be  paid.  He  denied  that  iu  an  aiiidavit, 
a  copy  of  which  I  have  here;  Controller  Haws  denied 
that  he  ever  said  he  was  iu  favor  oi  paying  them,  or 
that  Le  ever  said  that  they  ought  to  be'paid,  but  perti- 
naciously insisted  chat  they  were  absolutely  void  for 
fraud.  •  Wljeu  this  bill  canae  before  the  Governor  for 
his  signature,  he  declined  to  sign  it.  He  returned  it 
with  this  extraordinary  message  which  you  have 
heard  read.  In  that  message  he  extracted  the  passage 
from  Judge  Bronson' s  letter  to  which  I  have  referred. 
He  stood  up  firmly  against  this  tide  of  lobby  corruption. 
He  stood  firmly  suppoi-ted  by  one  man--leaniug 
upon  one  man,  relying  upon  that  support  for 
he  felc  that  it  was  honest,  faithful,  earnest.  He 
knew  the  man.  He  sits  over  there.  [Pointing  to 
Mr.  Greeley.]  [The  counsel  read  the  Governor's  mes- 
sage from  Senate  Jo icr rial,  ^2igQ^'6^.]  Now,  gentlemen, 
on  the  17th  of  April,  the  bili,  as  I  have  said,  was  re- 
turned with  this  message;  this  message  with  the  ex- 
tract from  Judge  Bronson' s  letter  was  read  in  the  pre- 
sence and  hearing  of  Mr.  Littlejohn;  and  after  it  was 
read,  Mr.  Littlejohn  left  the  Speaker's  chair  and  came 
down  again  in  tbe  arena  and  advocated  the  passage  of 
the  bilL  Now,  if  he  carried  the  bill  on  the  cJd  of 
April  by  stating  that  the  judgments  were  valid  and 
ought  to  be  paid,  and  based  his  authority  on  this  sub- 
ject on  the  pretended  statements  of  Greene  C.  Bronson 


and  Mr.  Haws,  if  he  then  believed  those  statements,  he 
certainly  was  disabused  of  that  belief  by  the  Govern- 
or's message,  where  the  Governor  quotes  from  Judge 
Bronson  the  language  which  has  been  read  to  you. 
Gentlemen,  I  don't  know  what  were  Mr.  Littlejohn's 
motives   in   making   the  statement    he  did  make 
when  the  bill  first  passed;  whether  he  will  claim 
he  believed   the  judgments  were   good  and  valid 
because  he  relied  on  the  judgments  and  opinions 
of  Haws  and  Bronson.    If  he   does,    a  wonder- 
ful change  h  is  come  over  the  spirit  of  his  di'eam 
before  the  17th,  when  his  mind  is  disabused  on  that 
subject;  when  the  Governor  argues  and  expostulates, 
still  he  comes  down  and  advocTites  the  passage  of  the 
bill,  and  canies  it  over  the  Governor's  veto,  and 
makes  it  the  law  of  the  land.   There  would  be  some 
relief  to  this  matter  if  you  could  think  that  Mr.  Little- 
john was  entirely  iynorant  of  all  that  had  transpired  iu 
the  ofiice  of  the  Land  Commissioners  during  ttiat  cur- 
rent year;  but  the  difficulty  is,  Mr.  Littlejohn  was  a 
member  of  that  Commission,  and  it  was  his  own  reso- 
lution that  gave  Taylor  and  Brennan  these  rights,  if 
they  had  any  real  rights.    He  was  then  sustaining 
himself  as  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Land  Commis- 
sioners, or  at  all  events  he  was  carrying  out  the  same 
plan  or  purpose,  which  seemed  to  have  been  con- 
,  ceived  and  acted  ujjou  while  sitting  in  that  Board.  I 
j  doa't  know  what  will  be  the  explanation  of  all  this. 
'  I  know  it  will  not  be  that  Mr.  littlejohn  was 
ignorant.     He   has    been   several   times  Speaker 
of    the     House    of    Assembly,     and     I  don't 
I  believe  it  is  going  to  be  claimed  by  counsel  that  he 
acted  ignorantly,  stupidly — that  he  was  decived  or 
duped.     If  he  has  any  excuse  for  his  conduct,  any 
I  apology  lor  it,  it  seems  to  me  it  all  points  one  way. 
His  philosophy  must  have  ]«een,  "If  the  servant  is  wor- 
thy of  the  hire,  then  the  hire  is  worthy  of  the  servant." 
\  Alter  the  bill  was  pas.'sed  Mr.  Haws  hesitated  to  settle, 
i  he  waited  to  take  the  advice  of  counsel;   and  finally 
I  got  a  hearing  before  Judge  Ingraham  and  the  Judge 
set  aside  all  these  judgments,  a:..d  directed  that  Taylor 
and  Brennan  should  pay  back  §30,000,  which  they'had 
j  received  from  the  Keceiver  as  rent  ot  these  premises. 

They  bad  over  $GO,OUU  from  the  rents  of  this  property 
j  at  the  time  the  judgments  were  all  set  aside.  When 
this  was  done,  Taylor  and  Brennan  otfered  a  compro- 
I  mise.  Judge  Bronson  hesitated  for  a  long  time  and  was 
'  very  slow  to  come  into  the  arrangement.    But  Taylor 
and  Brennan  were  ingenious,  Mr.  Mattison  of  Utica 
was  in  New-Y^'ork  for  weeks;   they  retained  Judge 
Beardsley,  who  had  been  the  partner  of  J udge  Bronson, 
and  finally  succeeded  in  bringing  about  a  settlement, 
I  by  which  the  city  was  to  pay  to  the  State  $300,000  for 
tlje  title  to  the  land;  and  pay  to  Taylor  «fe  Brennan 
$300,000    for    the    judgment,     and   allow  them 
to  retain  the  $60,000  they  had  iu  their  hands,  thus  giv- 
ing Taylor  &  Brennan   $360,000,   and   the  State. 
$300,000.    The  bargain  was  well  enough  for  the  city 
;  because  the  city  got  land  worth  $2,000,000,  but  the 
State  has  lost — lost  what  it  was  entitled  to  all  the 
back  rents,  amounting  to  $659,000  and  upwards,  and 
the  whole  of  the  property,  and  it  has  got  $300,000 
which  the  counsel  last  night  boasted  had  been  got 
through  the  efforts  of  Mr.  Littlejohn.    If  this  is  the 
kind  of  bargtiin  Mr.  Littlejohn  generally  makes  for  the 
State,  one  would  suppose  he  hardly  would  be  success- 
i  ful,  even  in  the  business  of  a  common  carrier.  He 
'  trades  better  for  himself  than  he  does  for  the  State,  or 
!  he  will  soon  be  bankrupt  irretrievably.    As  I  have 
!  said,  theee  judgments  were  set  aside  and  that  settle- 
I  ment  was  made,  and  the  city  has  got  the  title  to  the 
property,  and  the  State  has  lost  it;  and  the  State  has  got 
$300,000  for  what  was  worth,  mcludingthe  back  rents, 
over  $2,500,000.  If  there  is  any  excuse  for  this,  let  them 
have  the  benefit  of  it.   It  is  reported  that  a  great  deal 
i  of  money  was  used  about  that  Legislature :  it  has  come 
I  out  lately  in  testimony  before  the  Albany  Grand  Jury 
I  that  a  great  deal  was  expended — I  have  heard  it  said 


23 


more  than  a  million  dollars  were  spent  in  and  about 
that  Legislature.  I  don't  know  how  this  may  be;  but 
some  very  bold  things  were  done.  I  don't  know 
Whether  the  Speaker  partieipated  in  anything;  but 
things  were  done  around  him  so  closely  that  it,  seems 
very  strange  if  he  did  not  know  anything  about 
them.  Take  a  scene  of  this  kind  and  I  don't  see 
how  3Ir.  Littliijohn  can  be  free  from  ^ome  knowl- 
edge of  it.  A  member  is  sitting  in  his  seat.  He 
has  a  little  local  bill  which  he  wants  passed ; 
one  of  the  Clerks  goes  over  to  him  and  says,  "  Have 
you  any  interest  in  that  bill?"  (naming  it).  "Yes." 

Do  you  want  to  get  it  passed'/"    "Yes."  "How 
much  "iuterest  have  you  in  it?"    "I  don't  know." 
"Well,  yoii  better  find  out,  pretty  d — n  quick." 
-'Why,  what  do  you  mean  by  that  ?"    This  leads  on 
to  a  little  explanation,  till  the  member  says,  "  How 
anuch  will  do  ?"    "  Well,  how  much  will  you  give  ?" 
"  Will  $50  do ?"    "I  don't  know  but  it  will."  The 
$50  is  paid  over,  the  Clerk  goes  back  to  hU  de.>k,  and 
the  bill  is  taken  up  and  passed  in  a  very  few  minutes  ! 
I  don't  know  how  tbat  is  doae,  or  whether  there  is 
any  connection  with  Mr.  Littlejohn  o/ not;  but  if  I 
had  a  clerk  who  was  sitting  before  me,  I  don't  believe 
he  could  do  such  things  as  that  without  my  knowing 
it.     There  were  a  great  many  honest  men  who 
voted  for  these  measures,  and  Mr.  Littlejohn  explained 
in  his  great  defense  last  Autumn  at  Oswego,  how  it 
came  about.  He  saysia  his  speech,  in  vindicating  him- 
self for  voting  for  tiie  Susquehanna  Raib-oad  bill  over 
the  Governor's  veto  (that  was  a  bill,  you  recollect, 
that  gave  to  a  corporation  somethiug  like  a  million  of 
dollars,  out  and  out,  to  build  a  railioad) — Mr.  Little- 
john, vindicating  himself  in  his  speech,  says,  "the 
State  built  the  Erie  Canal,  and  the  Oswego  Canal." 
So  it  did,  and  the  State  owns  them.  You  build  a  house, 
and  you  own  it ;  but  if  you  buiUl  a  house  for  a  corpora- 
tion, the  corDOration  own  it,  and  not  you.  Is  there  any 
connection  between  the  two?     But  he  says  "there 
were  twenty  or  thirty  members  who  would  have  voted 
against  our  measure  "(some  Oswego  County  measure) 
if  I  had  not  gone  in  for  theirs."     That,  gentlemen,  is 
what  they  call  at  the  South  los^-rvUntg  ;  and  that  is 
the  way  in  which  a  great  many  men,  good,  honest 
men,    were    unwittingly   drawn   into  ^voting  for 
corrupt   measures.      Those  men   at   Albany  who 
have  been  practicing  at  that  bar — as  I  will  call  it — for 
twenty  years,  know  all  about  these  kind  of  obliga- 
tions.   One  of  the.-e  good,  honest  men  comes  in  from 
the  country,  and  takes  his  seat.    Our  lobby  man  s-iys: 
"  There  is  a  good,  honest,  old  "man,  we  must  let  him 
alone."     "  Oh,  no,"  says  another,  "  there  is  a  way  to 
reach  him;"  and  he  goes  up  to  hiin  and  says:  "  What 
have  you  got  ?"    "  Well,  I  have  got  a  little  local  bill 
here."    Well,  he  gets  him  to  give  a  pretty  good 
description  of  it ;  and  when  the  proper  time  comes,  be 
goes  around  to  the  member  and  says:  "  Here  is  a  bill 
about  the  City  of  New-Y^ork  that  I  want  you  to  vote 
for."    "Well,  I  don't  know  anything  about  it,"  says 
the  member.    "  Well,  if  you  don't  vote  for  it,  we  will 
kill  your  bill,  that's  all."    "  Is  it  all  right  ?"  inquires 
the  member.     "  O,  yes,  it  is  all  right."  "Well, 
if    it    is    a^l    rig^t,    I    will     vote    for  it." 
In    this    manner    good    and     honest   men  are 
got  to  vote  for  very  corrupt  bills.    However,  it  is 
not  to  be  excused.    If  you  go  to  one  of  these  men,  and 
say,  "  Here,  that  is  not  proper  legislation;  if  your  bill 
is  light,  it  ought  to  pass.  You  are  here  to  act  for  the 
State,  and  not  for  the  individual.    Y'ou  are  to  act  for 
the  public  good."    Y'ou  can  very  easily  convince  one 
of  these  men,  and  very  easily  make  him  say,  "  Well, 
they  will  never  catch"  me  so  again."    But  Mr.  Little- 
john has  stated  on  a  gre-^t  many  occasions,  that  he  did 
not  receive  any  money  for  his  voie.    1  presume  a  great 
many  men  could  take  the  stand  to  say,  "  I  never  re- 
ceived money  for  my  vote."    Let  us  suppose  a  little 
occurence:  one  man  approaches  a  member,  and  says, 
"Do  you  know  Mr.  So-and-so ?''     "Yes.  '  "Had 


any  conversation  with  him?"    "Y'es."  "Wanted 
you  to  vote  for  his  bill?"    "  Y^es."    "  Did  anybody 
else  want  you  to  vote  for  it  ?  '    "  Y'es."    "  Who,  Mr. 
So-and-so?"    " Mr.  So-and-so  said  there  was  money 
for  it."    "How  much?"     "$500."     "For  each 
man  who  voted  for  it  ?"   "  Y'es.  '  "  Well,  I  want  you 
to  vote  for  the  bill"     "I  don't  take  any  bribes." 
"  Oh  no,  of  course  not.    I  don't  talk  about  bribes — but 
there  is  Jones,  he  is  a  good  fellow,  he  won't  give  you 
any  money,  but  suppose  you  come  around  to  iny  room 
to-night  and  take  a  little  brandy  and  water,  and  have  a 
little  game  of  whist."  Well,  by  and  by  evening  comes 
and  he  goes  around  to  his  friend's  room  and  tnere  he 
finds  Jones,  a  very  accomplished  player,  and  they  sit 
down  to  have  a  game  of  whist,  and  this  accomphshed 
playerToses  $500;  the  member  puts  it  in  his  i)Ocket  and 
tfoes  away,  and  never  gambles  again  during  the  whole 
Winter,  but  he  votes  for  the  bill  just  as  sure  as  you  are 
born.    These  fellows  who  have  had  20  years'  experi- 
ence about  Albany,  don't  get  mistaken  in  their  men. 
But  some  men  do  not  gamble.    "  N'o,"  says  one,  "I 
won't  play."  He  talks  it  over,  however — for  instance, 
there  is  Dr.  Thompson  over  there  sittinfj  beside  a  mem- 
ber for  two  hours  talking  with  him,  perhaps  about  some 
railroad,  or  some  corportion,  in  the  City  of  New-Y'ork. 
Well,  he  talks  it  over,  and  finally  one  says:  "You 
must  vote  for  this  bill,  its  all  right ;  the  old  man  has 
got  an  interest  in  this  bill,  and  it  must  go  through ;  it 
j  is  on  the  slate;  and  if  you  should  be  hard  up  at  any 
time,  So-and-so  will  lend  you  a  little  money."    A  few 
hours  pass,  and  a  little  money  is  lent  to  that  man;  and 
he  votes  for  the  bill.    This  system  is  carried  onto  a 
vast  extent.     One  man  went  up  to  Albany  in  the 
Winter  of  1860,  and  said,  I  want  to  get  a  very  import- 
ant will  case  placed  fir?t  on  the  calendar;  I  have  got 
$60,0tj0  in  this  case,  and  I  am  ready  to  pay  liberally  to 
I  have  this  done.    The  other  man  says:  "Hush,  don't 
talk  so  loud — come  with  me  and  we  will  go  over  and  see 
that  man."  By  and  by  partiesare  seen,  things  go  along, 
the  bill  is  passed,  and  the  man  goes  home,  minus  how 
much  of  the  $60,000  ?    I  don  t  know;  but  I  mean  to 
ask  him  some  time  when  I  meet  him  in  the  street. 
There  is  one  other  case  in  my  mind  now  of  the  passing 
of  a  bill.    A  good  man  of 'New-York  wanted  a  bill 
passed,  and  he  went  up  to  Albany,  and  took  with  him 
,  a  man  not  f  o  good  as  he  was,  an<1  he  went  to  another 
man,  not  so  good  as  he  was;  and  it  so  happened  that 
1  tha  good  man  came  back  to  New-Y''ork  with  $3,000  less 
j  in  his  pocket — but  his  bill  was  passed.    The  reporters 
I  of  The  Tribune  could  have  filled  the  coluums  of  that 
I  paper  with  matters  of  this  kind.    Did  not  Mr.  Greeley 
j  believe  it  ?    And  was  he  malirious  in  expressing  his 
belief?      Gov.     Morgan    talks    right    out.  He 
says;   "Eighty  members  of  the  Legislature  received 
money  for  their  votes."     A  reporter  comes  to  Mr. 
Conkling  on  the  floor  of  the  House,  and  shows  him  a 
list  of  over  seventy  men,  and  he  says,  "I  know  every 
one  of  these  men  have  taken  bribes."  Mr.  Conkliog  be- 
lieved it,  and  told  Mr.  Greeley  of  it,  and  Mr.  Greeley 
believed  it.   Were  all  these  things  carried  on  under 
the  eye  of  that  man,  and  in  his  almost  all-pervading 
presence,  and  he  not  know  it  I    It  is  perhaps  only  a 
misfortune  to  be  poor.    We  have  proof  that  Mr.  Little- 
john failed  a  few  years  ago  for  a  large  amount  of 
money — I  only  sjteaK  of  it  as  a  circumstance  to  show 
that  he  was  not  rich.    I  have  heard  it  said:  "Elect 
such  a  man  to  ofiice,  he  is  above  corruption,  he  is 
rich."    I  don't  mean  to  say  that  poor  men  are  not  juet 
as  honest  as  rich  men ;   as  a  class  I  believe  they  are. 
But  Mr.  Littlejohn  acknowledged  his  poverty  d'uring 
tliis  session,  and  he  says  emphatically,  "  My  only  pur- 
pose is  to  make  money."    That  is  what  he  said,  and  I 
don't  know  whether  'it  is  true  or  not;  but  if  true  he 
was  iu  the  way  of  great  temptation.    Gentlemen,  I 
could  go  on  and  name  bill  af  er  bill,  and  circumstance 
after  circumstance,  and  detain  you  till  the  going  down 
of  the  sun. 


24 


"  Not  po:g«*ous  East,  with  richest  hand, 
Showert'd  on  her  kiiijis  barburio  pearls  and  gold,"' 

in  puoli  Uvisli  al»nndance  as  did  that  Lej^islatiire  n]ion 
that  Lobby.  "  Pizzsiio  never  held  out  more  dnzzliug 
lures  to  his  robber  band  when  he  led  them  forili  to 
the  fOU'pust  of  the  Cliildren  <-f  the  Sun."  But  I  for- 
bt-iir.  We  shall  go  into  this  case  for  the  pulili/  good, 
for  the  good  ot  just  and  hoiu^st  legislation,  and  the  up- 
holding of  trutli;  with  no  hatred  or  unkindne.-8  toward 
Mr.  Lit  lejohn,  except  that  we  deplore  that  a  man  of 
his  talents  ^honld  have  lent  himt^eli  to  such  iiii(inities. 
We  have  uothiuf'  to  say  in  temper,  nothing  in  anger. 
We  are  tilleil  with  sorrow,  but  helieve  it  a  duty  we 
owe  to  the  Stat^^,  to  the  cau-e  of  good  govei'umeut  and 
good  morals,  as  well  as  to  the  "  toiling  poor."  And 
with  the  blessing  of  God,  we  mean  to  do  our  duty. 
Court  took  a  recess. 

AFTERNOON  SESSION— Wednksday,  Sept.  11. 

TESTLMUXY  OF  HON.  FREDERICK  A.  CONKLING, 
SWORN    FOR  DEFENDANT — EXAMINED    BY    MR.  WIL- 
LIAMS. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ?  A.  I  reside  in  the  City 
of  New- York. 

Q.  What  is  your  business?  A.  I  am  by  profession 
a  merchant,  and  am  now  a  member  of  the  House  of 
Kepresentatives  of  the  United  Slates. 

Q.  You  were  a  member  of  the  Assembly  during  the 
session  of  1^6U  1    A.  Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  When  did  the  sescion  commence  ?  A.  I  think  on 
the  4ta  dav  of  January,  and  terminated  on  the  night  of 
the  17th  of  April. 

Q.  Do  you  know  ^Ir.  Littlejohn?  A.  Yes,  Sir;  I 
first  knew  him  as  a  member  of  the  Legislature  in  J854; 
I  was  in  the  LeiiisLitnre  wuth  iiiui  that  year,  and  I 
think  then  made  his  acqutiintauce  for  the  llret  t'n.Le. 

Q.  Were  you  a  member  of  the  Legislature  at  any 
time  between  1854  and  lf?60  ?    A.  Yes,  Sir,  in  1-.39. 

Q. 
forward 
railroads  / 

Mr.  Sedgwick  objected  for  plaintiff,  ai  we  had 
nothing  to  do  with  that  year. 

Mr.  Williams — We  wish  to  connect  Mr.  Littlejohn 
with  the  entfcrpri.-e  at  that  early  period. 

The  Court  sustained  the  objection. 

Exception  for  defendant. 

Mr.  Williams — If  we  cannot  prove  Mr.  LittL  jobn's 
connection  with  that  legislation  till  the  4th  day  of  Jan- 
uary, 1860,  I  suppose  we  should  not  be  allowed  to 
prove  his  complicity  with  the  euterpiise  at  any  earlier 
periol,  or  that  he  was  elected  for  the  very  purpose  of 
carrying  out  that  enterprise  ? 

The  CouKT— I  doubt  whether  this  would  beany 
more  admissible. 

Mr.  Sedgwick — The  electors  of  his  District  are  not 
on  trial  now.    That  is  their  business. 

Q.  Were  any  bills  in  reference  to  the  street  railroads 
in  the  City  of  *Ne w-Y'ork  introduced  during  the  year 
1860? 

Mr.  Sedgwick — I  object  to  that;  if  there  were  any, 
there  is  a  competent  way  of  showing  it  by  the 
record. 

Objection  ovei  ruled. 

Exception  for  plaintiff. 

A.  Such  bills  were  introduced. 

Q.  By  whom  ?  A.  They  wt-re  several  in  number; 
I  am  unable  to  say  who  introduced  them;  they  were 
reported  from  the  Standing  Committee  on  the  Incorpo- 
ration of  Citie*-  and  \'illages,  tothe  House,  for  its  action. 

Q.  Who  was  Chairman  of  that  Committee  on  Cities 
and  Villages  ?  A.  Elias  Pond,  I  think,  of  Monroe 
County. 

Q.  By  whom  was  that  Committee  appointed  ? 

Mr.  Sedgwick  objected,  as  the  ujalter  was  not  sus- 
ceptible of  proof  and  entirely  immaterial  and  irrele- 
vant. 

Objection  overruled.    Exception  for  plaintiff. 


During  the  session  of  I'^.V:)  were  any  bills  brought 
ird  or  passed  in  reference  to  the  Nev.-- i  ork  city 


A.  Bv  the  Speaker  of  the  Honse  of  Ateemblv. 

Who  was  the  Speaker  at  that  time  A.  Mr.  Lit- 
tlejohn. 

().  Were  these  bills  ever  considered  io  Committee  of 
the  Whole 

OI)jected  to  as  immaterial  and  irrelevant.  Objection 
overruled. 

A.  My  rec/)llection  on  that  point  is  not  very  distinct. 
I  could  refresh  my  memory  by  the  Assembly  Journal. 
I  know  tlie  practice  was  regarded  as  being  veiy  sharp 
on  that  subject,  and  

^Ir.  Sedgwick — Never  mind  the  iiractice. 

[A  copy  of  the  Assembly  Joiu-nal  w  as  liandcd  to  the 
witness.] 

Witness — [Reading].    I  find  that  the — 
Mv.  Sedgwick  objected  to  this  readhig  from  the 
Journal. 

Witness — The  bill  never  was  formall}'-  considered 
in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
_  Q.  Weie  vouintbe  llouee  when  thege  New-York 
city  railroad  bills  passed  the  House  for  the  firct  time  ? 
A.  My  recollection  is  that  I  was. 

Q.  Do  you  •  recollect  whether  3[r.  Littlejohn  par- 
tici{)ated  in  the  deb  ate  on  these  bills  at  any  time,  in  the 


?   A.  I  think  he  did  not. 


Q.  Were  you  in  the  House  at  the  time  these  bills 
passed  over  the  Governor's  signature  ?    A.  I  was  not. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  House  at  the  time  the  West 
Washington  Market  Bill  first  passed  the  House  ?  A. 
Yes  Sir. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Littlejohn  participate  in  the  debate  on 
that  measure  ?    A.  Yes  Sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  what  he  said  in  relation  to  his 
knowledge  of  the  matter,  or  of  Mr.  Bronson's  opinion 
of  the  Taylor  &  Brennan  judgments?  A  The 
Speaker  of  the  House  stated,  in  debate,  in  rejdy  to 
some  remarks  I  had  made  in  opposition  to  the  Jjill,  that 
he  had  information  from  the  public  authorities  of  New- 
York  in  reference  to  that  bill,  and  that  he  had  the  au- 
thority of  the  Corporation  Counsel  and  the  Controller 
for  saying  that  tlie  bill  was  right  and  ju-oper,  and 
ought  to  be  passed ;  and  as  to  the  judgments,  amount- 
ing to  between  $6l)0,UU0  and  8700,000,  recovered  by 
Taylor  &  Bieuuau,  he  had  tlie  authority  of  the  Corpo- 
ration Counsel  for  saying  that  they  were  good  and 
va'id  juduments. 

Q.  Who  was  the  Corporation  Counsel  at  that  time? 
A.  Greene  C.  Bronson. 

Q.  Who  was  Mr.  Bronson's  immediate  predecessor 
ill  t  hat  office  ?  A.  I  am  unable  to  say  whetlier  Kobert 
J.  Dillon  or   » 

Q.  W^as  not  Mr.  Busteed?  A.  Y'es,  Mr.  Busteed 
was. 

Q.  Y''ou  said  you  participated  in  that  debate  ?  A. 
Yes,  Sir;  I  opposed  the  bill  from  the  time  it  was  iu- 
troduced  until  it  was  passed. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  statement  in  the  hearing  of 
Mr.  Littlejohn  in  that  debate  in  reference  to  these 
jtCdgnieiits  and  in  reference  to  tiiat  bill. 

Mr.  SEDG\vicq  objected  to  the  (|uestion.  The  Court 
admitted  the  evidence,  and  the  plaintiff  's  counsel  ex- 
cepted. 

A.  I  stated  repeatedly  that  the  judgments  were 
founded  in  fraud,  and  would  be  set  aside  upon  a  proper 
bearing  by  the  Courts. 

Q.  ^Vel■e  you  in  the  House  when  the  W^est  Wash- 
ington :\larket  bill  passed  over  the  Governor  s  veto  ? 
A."  I  don't  distinctly  recollect.  (Witness  looked  al  the 
Journal  of  the  Assembly.)  I  find  now  that  I  was. 
and  voted  to  sustain  the  Governor  s  veto. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Littlejohn  vote  on  that  question?  A. 
Tne  Speaker  was  piestnt,  and  voted  in  the  affirmative. 

Q.  Can  you  say  whether  the  Speaker  can.e  down 
from  the  ctiair,  or  particij)ated  in  any  way  on  that 
vote  ?  A.  My  recollection  is  that  I  rea<  hed  the  House 
just  as  the  Clerk  was  beginning  to  call  the  roll,  and. 
the  discussion  had  taken  place  before  I  reached  the 
House. 

Q.  You  don't  remember  that  you  participated  in  the 


25 


debate  on  that  occasion  ?  A.  Xo,  Sir;  I  am  confident 
I  did  not. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  House  at  the  time  the  Govern- 
or's Veto  Message  was  read?  A.  My  recollection  is 
that  the  Message  bad  been  read  before  I  reached  the 
House  on  mv  return  from  Xew-York,  which  I  did 
about  12  o'clock  on  che  17th  of  April,  1860. 

Q.  What  was  Mv.  Littlejohu's  influence  in  the 
House  at  the  time  these  bills  were  passed  ?  and  prior 
to  that  time  in  reference  to  passing  bills  ? 

Mr.  Sedgwick  objected  to  the  ouestiou  as  mpve  mat- 
ter of  opinion,  and  immaterial. 

The  Court  overruled  the  objection,  and  the  plaintiff  s 
counsel  excepted. 

A.  I  considerec   

member  of  that  Assembly. 

Q.  Speak  of  his  ability  to  pass  or  reject  bills — the 
bills  in  question,  and  other  bills  ? 

Mr.  Skdgwick  objected  on  the  ground  that  no  man 
could  speak  of  Mr.  Littlejohu's  power.  We  insist 
that  if  there  is  to  be  any  limit  to  this  investigaiion, 
it  is  high  time  to  put  down  the  stake. 

Mr.  Williams — We  propose  to  prove,  first,  that  there 
was  corrupt  legielation'diuing  the  session  of  ISCO.  We 
think  our  charge  is,  that  there  was  corrupt  1  eg i relation, 
and  we  propose  to  prove  it.  We  specify  certain  bills, 
which  we  say  we  wiU  prove  were  corrupt  measures. 
Our  purpose  now  is  to  prove  that  these  measures  were 
in  point  of  fact  corrupt,  and  to  establish  that  fact  affir- 
matively. We_  propose  to  prove,  secondly,  that  this 
man,  the  plaintiff,  was  a  prominent  participant  in  that 
corru})t  legiblation. 

The  Court — And  your  offer  does  not  embrace  any 
offer  to  prove  that  the  plaintiff  was  personally  cor- 
rupt ? 

Mr.  Williams — Wg  offer  and  propose  to  prove  that 
Mr.  Litttlejohn  was  cognizant  of  and  knew  of  the  cor- 
ruption of  thete  measures;  and  that  knowing  these 
facts  and  having  full  knowledge  of  that  corruption,  he 
lent  his  aid  and  influence  to  carry  them,  and  by  virtue 
of  his  excrtioris,  power,  industry,  and  appliances  he 
was  successful  in  carrying  them  tiirough. 

Mr.  Sedgwick — The  propositions  of  the  counsel 
seem  to  be  intended  to  cover  up  the  point  of  contro- 
versy instead  of  bringing  it  out,  and  to  lead  to  getting 
in,  in  a  sort  of  a  loose  M'ay,  evidence  about  ever3^body 
and  everything,  except  the  plaintiff  in  the  case,  and 
what  he  has  done,  and  what  has  been  done  to  him. 
Now,  if  I  understand  at  all  what  the  answer  is,  they 
must  prove,  not  that  there  was  unwise  legislation,  not 
that  there  was  legislation  that  had  better  not  have 
been,  but  they  must  prove  that  there  were  bills  passed 
there  by  means  of  corru{)tion,  atd  that  the  legislator 
was  bribed  or  improperly  influenced  in  other  wavs; 
and  they  must  point  that  proof  directly  to  the  plaintiff, 
and  shovv  that  he  advocated,  or  votea  for,  or  assisted 
in  the  passage  of  bills,  induced  to  it  by  bribery,  or  in- 
terested personalmotivesthatare  equivalent  to  bribery. 
Now,  if  I  understand  the  gentleman  oi-ening,  they  do 
not  propose  to  prove  that  Mr.  Litilejohu  was  guilty  of 
this;  he  avoided  this  throughout.  They  don't  expect 
to  prove  that  anybody  piit  money  into  Mr.  Littlejohu's 
palm,  or  that  he  has  received  anytbiug,  or  that  he  has 
u?ed  a  cent  of  monejr  to  induce  other  persons  to  vote. 
The  only  allegation  is  that,  in  legard  to  certain  bills, 
he  advocated  tbem  and  voted  for  them ;  that  he  had  a 
right  to  do.  _  It  does  not  go  one  step  towai-d  making 
out  this  justification;  that  these  measures  were  unwise 
in  themselves,  or  that  the  rights  of  the  State  or  the 
City  of  New-York  were  prejudiced  by  the  legislation 
of  1860,  unless  it  goes  beyond  a  mistake  in  judgment, 
and  beyond  an  error,  or  beyond  being  properlv  influ- 
enced to  vote  for  an  unjust  or  unwise  measure.  It  must 
have  been  througl  j corruption  and  through  corrupt  mo- 
tives. They  are  charged  upon  tire  pLiiutifl  in  tbis  li  )el. 
and  imless  their  proof  reaches  this  point,  it  noes,  for 
nothing,  and  offers  no  legal  defense.  It  don't' ju^tity 
the  charge  made  to  appeal  to  the  feelings  of  the  Jury, 


to  prejudice  the  Jury,  or  to  defend  this  action  on  what 
other  men  have  done.  Tie  counsel  now  does  not  aver 
tliat  he  will  show  that  tbis  corruption  reached  Mr. 
Liftlejohn,  that  hy  was  biibed,  or  that  hefcmade  an  im- 
proper use  of  ij is  position  in  the  Assembly  to  biibe, 
induce,  or  otherwise  improj  erly  iafiuence  other  mem 
hers.  We  will  admit  tiiat  these  bills  are  all  corrupt, 
if  you  choose.  Suppose  there  was  bribery  there. 
Suppose  these  appliances,  on  which  the  gentleman 
dwelt  so  long  this  morning,  were  used  !  What  of  it, 
if  it  does  not  reach  Mr.  Littlejohn  ?  Nobody  else  is 
on  trial  here.  He  is  the  man  who  is  to  be  affected; 
and  because  he  has  voted,  because  he  has  large  influ- 
ence in  the  Assembly,  because  he  may  influence  by  his 
eloquence  or  example  to  vote  for  a  measure — all  that 
does  not  attect  tlie  point  of  this  controversy  a  particle. 
That  is  a  matter  between  him  and  his  Creator,  who 
has  given  him  these  taltnts  and  powers,  and  to  Him 
alone  is  he  answerable  for  a  just  Ube  of  them.  He  is 
answerable  here  only  that  he  should  be  free  from 
bribery,  though  it  reach  every  other  man  in  the  As- 
sembiy. 

Mr.  Williams — I  am  sure  the  gentleman  misunder- 
stands the  defendant's  position.  In  my  opening  I  felt 
disposed  to  spare  Mr.  Littlejohn,  as  much  as  possi- 
bl'^,  and  said  that  it  was  not  our  duty  to  attack  his  pri- 
vate character  in  any  domestic  sense;  bu;,  the  whole 
drift  of  the  opening  was  to  show  that  there  was  but 
one  motive  and  one  fact  that  could  by  any  possibility 
explain  his  conduct;  and  what  that  fact  was  tl  e  coun- 
sel understands  clearly.  What  motive  could  there 
have  been  for  this  extraordinary  conduct  but  one  ? 
We  propose  to  establisfi  that  Mr.  Littlejohn  was  a» 
guilty  as  any  other  man.  If  ic  took  to  pass  these 
measures  over  the  Governor's  veto  two  thirds  of  all 
the  votes,  Mr.  Littlejohu's  vote  was  a  constituenr  part 
of  this  two-thirds,  we  attach  to  him  as  much  guilt  as 
to  any  other  man.  Nay,  he  was  promiueut  in  that 
legislation.  All  those  measures  were  corrupt,  and  he 
was  prominent  in  them  from  motives  of  which  I 
scarcely  feel  myself  capable  of  speaking,  from  the 
magnitude  of  their  enormity.  As  to  the  word  bribe, 
on  which  the  gentleman  lays  so  much  stress,  no  man 
will  s  fvear  positively ;  but  we  shall  press  it  before  the 
jury  to  believe  that  some  things  very  similar  to  that 
mut-t  Lave  influenced  Mr.  Littlejohn. 

Mr.  Sedg\vick — The  counsel  endeavors  to  avoid  the 
real  que jfion  in  this  case.  Does  he  mean  to  say  that 
for  a  member  of  the  Legislature  to  vote  contrary  ta 
the  veto  of  the  Executive  is  corrupt  ?  What  does  he 
mean  by  "extraordinary  measures  that  he  voted  for  V ' 
On  one  or  two  occations  he  had  the  audacity  to  speak, 
in  favor  of  a  measure  he  proposed  to  vote  for  and 
nothing  more.  He  talks  about  members  receiving 
money,  and  about  money  being  raised  iu.the  City  of 
New- York — enormous  sums  of  money  for  the  purpose 
of  carrying  certain  bills  through  the  Legislature.  But 
does  he  dare  to  say  that  he  expects  to  prove  that  Miv 
Littlejobn  received  one  dollar  of  that  money  ?  Daie 
he  say  that  in  the  presence  of  this  Jury,  *and  then 
come  before  them  and  ask  them  to  believe  it  on 
such  tesiimouy  as  he  knows  he  has  got  in  this 
case  ?  and  all  the  evidence  that  raking  the 
earth,  and  I  hud  almost  said  the  place  below  the  earth, 
will  bring  to  pi  ove  bis  case  here  ?  Does  he  dare  to 
say  that  ?  And  yet  he  insinuates  it  to  the  Jury.  The 
whole  tenor  of  his  speech  is,  that  somebody  was 
bribed;  he  dare  not  say  it  was  Mr.  Littlejohn.  1  don't 
speak  merely  of  pert>onal  bribery,  but  also  of  any 
conduct  unbecoming  a  legislator;  and  on  this  point  we 
challenge  scrutiny.  And  the  gentleman  can  go  through, 
with  his  examiuation  to  show  tbat  Mr.  Littlejohn  or 
anybody  else  was  cognizant  of  tiiere  fac^s.  But  they 
do  not 'expect  to  reach  that  point.  They  propose  to 
show  that  there  was  corrupt  legislation;"  that  these 
measures  were  unwise  and  imprudent;  and  because 
Mr.  Littlejohn  was  a  member  of  the  Legislature,  and 
had  the  audacity  to  speak  and  vote  upon  them,  that  he 


I 


26 


was  prominent  in  the  oorrnpt  legislation.  And  yet 
ISIr.  Littlejobn,  in  his  personal  cluirattor,  u  a 
pure  and  honest  man  !  Now,  I  *-fiy.  there  is 
no  a>ub  (ftstinction  to  bo  made.  If  Mr.  Little- 
jolin  has  received  a  bribe,  he  it)  not  an  honest 
man;  be  is  not  a  pure  man;  and  bis  personal  charac- 
ter is  as  corrupt  as  bis  olli'-ial  character.  He  is  dishon- 
est if  lie  bas  sold  the  i;iterest8  of  the  State  for  money, 
or  for  personal  consiilerati')Us;  there  is  no  such  subter- 
fuge bere.  You  have  got  to  show  that  he  was  con- 
n-^cted  witb  some  hill  th  it  passed  the  LeKiel;tture  and 
voted  lor  it,  iiiUuenced  hy  corrupt  appliances;  or  that 
be,  being  inteiested  in  the  measure,  attempted  to  use 
these  appliam-es  upon  his  brother  members.  It  is  not 
enough  to  show  that  lie  spoke  in  favor  of  a  measure; 
because  that  is  bis  right  and  Ids  duty.  It  is  not  enough 
to  show  that  he  niH'ered  from  the  Governor;  members 
of  the  Legislature  may  Jionestly  ditier  from  the  Gover- 
nor. Thar  is  not  the  point,  The  point,  I  repe  it  again, 
is  what  they  seek  to  avoid,  and  not  to  meet. 

Mr.  Wit'liams — My  learned  friend  does  not  seem  to 
understand  me  yet.  Geailemen  sometimes  think  it 
proper  to  use  gentle  language,  wbeu  they  can  do  so, 
and  such  language  is  generally  understood,  I  believe, 
by  gentlemen;  Imt  the  counsel  sees  lit  not  to  under- 
stand me,  or  he  is  endeavoring  very  ingeniously  to 
draw  us  from  the  real  issue.  Now,  I  will  put  an  end  to 
this  misunderstanding  bere  by  a  few  words,  and  tell 
the  gentleman  bere  now  that  we  will  prove  these 
measures  to  have  been  corrupt  measures;  and  we  will 
prove  that  Mr.  Littlejobn  was  one  of  tbe  principals — a 
chief  in  that  corruption;  and  if  the  counsel  sees  tit  to 
tay  that  because  !Mr.  Littlejobn  is  a  corrupt  legislator 
that  be  is  a  bad  father  or  a  bad  husband  he  is  at  liberty 
to  do  so.  When  the  counsel  says  that  we  concede  that; 
he  is  an  boaest  man,  I  &ay  tliat"  no  such  concession  can 
be  drawn  from  anything  that  fell  from  uiy  lips.  Tlje 
counsel  must  underetand  that  we  projiose  to  [irove  Mr. 
Littlejobn  to  be  the  chief  of  those  corrupt  men  who 
passed  those'corraiit  measures  '  , 

RULING  OF  T)IE  COURT. 
The  Court — We  have  desired -to  have  distinctly 
presented  the  scoj  e  and  extent  of  the  defense  which 
ie  introduced  here,  for  it  is  important  for  us  to  get  at 
the  precise  issue,  and  to  know  what  U  to  be  tried  and 
what  we  are  called  to  pass  upon.  That  involves  neces- 
sarily the  construction  of  the  article  in  (|Ue6tion,  and 
tbe  character  and  purport  of  the  alleged  libel.  The 
libel  comi>laiDed  of  is  in  the  following  words: 

"  A  corre3poudei:t  earnestly  inquire?  our  opinion  concerning 
tlie  noDiination  lor  members  of  the  Legislature  ot  D.  C.  Little- 
jobn a:  O-iwego  and  Austin  Myers  at  Syracuse.  On  this  subject 
our  opinion  bas  been  so  olteu  expressed  that  it  cannot  be  in 
doubt.  Both  th»8e  persons  were  prominent  in  the  corrupt  legis- 
lation of  last  Winter.  Accordingly,  both  of  them  ought  now  to 
be  d'ifedted.  Or,  if  they  must  be  sent  back  to  pursue  their  ca- 
reer at  Albany,  it  should  not  be  the  work  of  Republican  voters.' 

That  allegation  is  a  charge  of  personal  corruption  in 
recjectto  the  ]dalntifi";  that  he  "was  prominent  in 
the  corrupt  legisbilion  of  last  Winter.  '  And  involving 
that  propof-ition,  and  stuting  that  as  of  fact,  it  is  not, 
iu  my  judgment,  a  defense  that  the  leu:i.-lat ion,  with 
respect  to  other  persons,  and  other  parties,  and  other 
subjects,  was  of  an  improper  or  corrupt  character.  To 
impute  thiscbart/e  is  to  impute  personal  corruption  to 
the  plaintiff;  and  I  hold,  therefore, 

F'.rst  :  That  the  ])ublicalion  involves  a  charge  of 
personal  corruption,  andean  only  besustaiued  by  proof 
tending  to  show  that  the  plaintiff  acted  and'  voted 
under  mercenary  api'liauces,  or,  in  orher  words,  that 
he  was  bribed  to  vote  and  act  as  be  tlid;  or  that  he 
derived  some  personal  advantage  from  the  acts  or  the 
votes  he  gave. 

That  is  my  judgaient  of  the  character  of  this  libel. 

S€':onil^ :  Now,  then,  if  that  tie  so,  1  hold  that  it  does 
not  sustain  the  defense  to  show  that  tlie  l^egislature 
was  reported  and  believed  to  be  corrupt;  or  that  other 
members  acted  under  corrupt  iidiuences;  nor  that  such 
iegifelatiou  was  iu  fact,  or  was  believed  to  be  injurious 


to  the  public  and  only  designed  to  advance  private  in- 
[ tercets. 

Tiiat  is  ray  judgment  upon  that  pfoposition.    It  fol- 
lows, then,  if  that  be  so,  that  the  matter  set  forth  in 
the  ;id  and  Ith  answers  which  set  up  corrupt  legisla- 
tion in  general  terms;  and  that  Mr.  Littlejobn  voted 
and  acted  in  this  Legislature,  constitute  no  defense, 
and  no  proof  can  be  given  under  these  answers.    I  de- 
cided l  ast  niiiht,  in  overruling  the  motion  to  dismiss 
the  complaint,  t!iat  it  involved'a  personal  charge;  and 
also  that  the  publication  was  not  a  privileged  one.  The 
tirst  answer  sets  up  tliat  tlie  puiilicatiou  was  a  privi- 
I  leged  one.    Upon  that  subject  I  liold 
I     Tnird  :  Tiiat  the  publication  is  not  a  privileged  one 
;  on  I  he  part  of  the  defendant,  as  tbe  editor  of  a  public 
I  journal.     Tiie  press  to  comment  fully  and  freely  upon 
.  public  characters,  from  the  Tre^ident  down,  and  to 
I  utter  these  things  with  tbe  utmost  freedom — to  cbai-ge 
]  ollicial  men  with  incompetency  and  imbocjlity,  witb 
I  ignorance  or  corruption — to  charge  judges  with  ignor- 
ance, incompetency,  or  venality — and  the  proof  of  the 
truth  of  any  of  the.se  allegations  is  a  perfect  defense. 
But  the  press  has  no  right,  under  its  guaranteed  free- 
]  dom,  to  piibli di  what  is  not  true.    It  bas  no  right  to  do 
I  that  which  shall  be  an  injury  to  the  country,  or  which 
!  shall  wrongfully  assail   pi'ivate   character.  Tiiese 
assaults  on  ind  vidaals  or  u])on  private  character  do 
not  become  privileged  because  tbi-y  are  uttered  bv  the 
editor  or  pro})rietor  of  a  newspa[)er.    Tiiey  have  large 
protection  and  large  immunities,  and  it  is  right  they 
should  have;  but  they  do  not  extend  to  the  length  of 
makmu:  publications  of  this  cbai-acter  privileged  within 
i  tbe  rule. 

1     Fourth  :   It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  matters  pet 
1  forth  in  the  first,  third,  and  fourth  answers  constitute 
no  defense;   and  therefore,  as  I  conceive,  no  proOf  can 
i  be  given  under  them. 

1  The  proof  must  be  confined  to  such  alle<raJion8  as 
'  impute  improper,  wicked,  or  corrupt  conduct  to  the 
!  plaintiif;  and  in  this  case,  the  second  answer,  as  I 
'  understand,  substantially  does  make  that  allegaiiou.  I 
I  hold. there  ore: 

I  F'fth  :  Tlait  the  proof  must  be  confined  to  the  sec- 
ond answer,  and  must  be  such  proof  as  will  tend  di- 
rectly to  prove  that  the  plaintiff  wickedly,  willfully, 
and  corruptly  voted  for  those  acts  which  are  set  forth 
in  this  answer,  and  they  can  only  be  supported  by 
proof  of  personal  corrui)tion,  or  to  such  evidence  under 
tbe  fifth  answer  as  is  competent  in  mitigation. 

1     In  that  aspect  of  the  case,  this  riuesnon  is  inadmisei- 

I  ble.  Under  these  propositions,  tbe  proof  must  neces- 
sarily confine  itself  within  the  line  of  evidence  which 

,  I  have  indicated. 

i  The  defendant  excepted  to  each  and  eveiy  one  of 
tbe  foregoing  propositions  eepurattly. 
[  Mr.  PoKTKu — Do  I  understand  your  Honor  to  hold 
i  that  when  we  charge  corrupt  legislation,  and  that  the 
'  plaintiff  corruptly  advocated  it,  we  cannot  prove  the 
:  iruth  of  the  entire  proposition  ? 

The  Court — You  can  prove  that  he  was  corrupt  by 
appliances  or  infiuences  made  to  him,  but  you  cannot 
prove  the  proposition  that  the  le-islation  was  corrupt, 
and  that  be  advocated  and  took  part  in  that  legislation. 

]\Ir.  roKTEK — I  submit  to  your  Honor  that  the  libel 
divides  itself  into  two  branches.  The  one  charging 
that  certain  measures  were  procured  by  corruption ; 
the  other  is  that  tbe  plaintiff corru{  tly  advocated  them. 
According  to  the  construction  your  Honor  gives  to  the 
article,  I  submit  that  it  is  perfectly  comi)eteut  to 
prove  the  truth  of  each  branch  of  the  proposition.  If 
there  were  doubt  on  the  subject,  tbe  plaintiff  has 
'  solved  it.  He  bas  introduced  in  evidence  another  arti- 
cle, containing  similar  charges,  by  way  of  aggravation 
of  damages,  and  it  is  well  settled  by  the  authorities 
that  we  have  a  right,  without  any  ])lea,  to  prove  the 
truth  of  any  other  libel  read  in  evidence  in  aggrava- 
tion of  daniiiges.  I  am  sure  I  must  understand  your 
Houoi's  decision.    Does  my  friend  upon  the  other  side 


i 


27 


mean  seriously  to  claim  that  vre  are  rot  at  lib- 
erty to  prove  the  truth  of  the  publication  allefjed 
to  'be  libelous  ?     On  the   contrary,  he  told  yonr 
Honor  that  if   driven    to   it,    he    should  admit 
that   the   legislation    was   corrupt,    atul  he  ad- 
mitted if  it  was  corrupt,  and  the  plaintift'  corruptly 
participated   in  it,  then  our  libel  was  justified — it 
ceased  to  be  a  libel.    It  may  be  better  here,  for  the 
purpose  of  avoiding  misunderstanding,  to  state  more 
fully  that  my  learned  associate  has  done  what  we 
purpo:=e  to  prove;  and  how  we  purpose  to  prove  it. 
Our  charge  in  the  article  complained  of  was  of  a  corruot 
legi;lative  combination,  as  your  Honor  construes  it. 
Assuoaing  that  construction  for  the  purpose  of  the 
argument  to  be  correct,  we  propose  to  prove  it — and 
that  tbe  plaintiff  was  one  of  that  corrupt  combination. 
We  cliarge  that  it  was  a  combination  to  defraud  the 
people  of  the  State  and  of  the  City  of  New-York; 
that  it  was  entered  into  and  consummated  for  private, 
unworthy,  and  corrupt  ends.    We  propose  to  prove  it.  , 
How  ?  _  We  must  first  characterize  these  acts  wiih  ' 
corruption,  and  it  is  upon  the  evidence  that  the  Jury  ' 
is  to  characterize  theni.    We  must  then  characterize  ' 
the  actors;  and  if  proved  to  be  corrupt,  one  of  them,  ' 
at  least,  is  to  be  characterized  by  the  Jury.    And  how  i 
is  this  to  be  done  ?    My  learned  friends  on  the  other 
side  cay,  "  You  cannot  penetrate  into  the  se'irets  of  the 
plaintilFs  heart;  and  as  you  cannot,  vou  can  found  no  ; 
ittdgment  or  verdict  upon  the  fact  of  corruption."  This 
is  a  proposition  no  lawyer  wi  1  seriously  advocate  1 
for  one  moment.    The  gentlemen  call  upon  us  to  | 
produce  the  witness  who  has   ever  toucbed    the  i 
palm   of  De  ^Vitt  C.    Littlejohn   with    a   bribe,  j 
TheT/  may  call  for  it — the  knc  does  not.    The  lav:  calls 
for  the  corrupt  act ;  and  the  act,  which  otherwise migbt  ' 
be  lawful,  becomes  corrupt  by  the  corrupt  intent. 
To  illustrate:  We  have  proposed  to  prove,  as  stated  by 
my  learned  astociate  in  tlie  opening,  that  certain  rail-  \ 
road  bills  were  proposed  in  the  House  of  Assembly  for  : 
private  advantage,  and  in  fraud  of  the  public.    We  ; 
propose  to  show  that  there  was  a  corrupt  combination  ■ 
for  the  purpose  of  passing  these  bills  between  members 
of  the  House  and  other  persons  not  member^!  of  the 
House,  but  who  were  engaged  in  corruptly  influencing 
them.    There  were  actors  without — there  were  actors 
within.    They  had  a  common  purpose;  and  the  pur 
pose  of  neither  was  the  good  the  country,  bnt  private 
advantage.     We  propose  to  show  that  these  bills  cost 
the  people  between  two  and  three  millions  of  dollars, 
vcted  away  by  Speaker  Littlejohn  and  his  confeder- 
ates, for  no  purpose,  except  deliberate  profliiracy  and 
the  profits  to  be  derived  therefrom.     Now,  Sir,  if  this 
be  true,  is  it  no  de'ense  ?    I  aver  that  we  establish  its 
truth,  if  we  can  prove  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Jary, 
tbat  the  corrupt  intent  consisted  simply  in  this:  That 
of  the  millions  thus  taken  frooa  the  people,  $10,000 
should  go  to  the  brother,  and  $40,000  to  the  brother-in- 
law  of  the  pldiutilF !    When  we  prove  these  facts,  it 
is  for  the  Jury  to  say  whether  there  was  a  corrupt  mo- 
tive for  the  Speaker's  votes.    When  we  find  that  the 
act  was  manifestly  against  the  public  interest ;  when  . 
we  find  that  men  were  bought  and  sold  like  slaves  in  ' 
the  market;  when  we  prove  that  this  was  done  pub-  ; 
lidy  and  openly,  and  under  the  eye  of  Speaker  Lirtle-  . 
john;  when  we  prove  that,  seeing  these  things,  he  con- 
sented; wheniwe  prove  tbat  the  Governor  of  the  State  i 
arrested  the  corrupt  bills  by  the  veto  power;  and 
when  we  follow  it  up  by  proof  that  the  plaintiff 
left  his  place  in  the  Speaker's  chair  for  the  purpose, 
as  a  disputant  in  the  arena,  of  arguing  the  question  in- 
volving practically   the  issue  whether  his  brother 
shoula  receive  $  10,000,  and  his  brother-in-law  $40,000 
more,  of  the  profits  of  this  iniquitous  legislation — do 
these  facts  constitute  no  defense  ?    Why,  Sir,  is  it 
possible  that  having  alleged,  we  may  not  jirove  them  ? 
When  we  charge  that  men  are  bought  and  sold,  may 
we  not  prove  it  ?   When  we  charge  as  you  hold,  that 
Mr.  Littlejohn  was  corrupt,  may  we  not  prove  it,  as 


we  prove  any  other  fact,  by  circumstantial  evidence  ? 
Have  we  not  "to  give  this  Jury  the  benefit  of  the  light  of 
all  the  surrounding  circumstatces,  which  will  enable 
them  to  judge  of  the  motives  of  the  actors  ?  How  are 
we  to  arrive  at  tbat,  your  Honor  ?  When  we  show  that 
the  measures  were  notoriously  corrupt — that  it  was  so 
charged  on  the  floor  of  tbe  House,  and  that  Mr. 
Sneiker  Littlejohn  undertook  to  defend  the  bills  on 
frivolous  and  unworthy  grounds;  that  he  voted  for 
them,  used  his  influence  for  them,  and  joined  issue  with 
another  deps^rtnient  of  the  Government  to  force  their 
passage,  will  your  Honor  say  tbat  we  do  not  establish 
corruption,  be;au?e  we  do  not  trace  the  bril)e  directly 
to  his  private  pocket  ?  You  hang  men  on  circumstan- 
ti^il  evidence  !  I  ask,  then,  on  what  principle  it  is,  in  a 
case  where  the  very  prdvampii  of  the  accusation  con- 
sists in  the  intent,  that  you  will  not  receive  circumstan- 
tial evidence  to  establish  the  intent  ?  Your  Honor,  I  un- 
derstand, gives  a  very  limited  definition  to  the  term  cor- 
ruption. I  submit,  Sir,  that  it  has  never  been  held,  either 
upon  the  trial  of  an  impeachment  or  upon  a  criminal  trial 
for  corrupt  action,  as  a  legislator  or  a  public  oflicer, 
that  you  were  not  permitted  to  leave  to  the  tribunal 
that  is  to  pass  upon  the  fact,  the  determination  of  the 
motive  of  the  act  and  its  circumstances.  Your  Honor 
I)roposes  in  the  first  place,  if  I  un^^erstand  your  ruling, 
to  exclade  the  evidence  to  show  that  there  was  the 
corruption  which  we  charge,  and  then  to  exclude 
the  evidence  of  the  plaintiff's  participation  in 
that  corruption ;  but  you  ofi'er  to  us  the  privilege  of 
proving  that  some  man  advanced  to  biin  with  a  bribe; 
tendered  it,  and  that  he  accepted  the  tender  and  pock- 
ted  it !  If  you  look  at_  our  Statute  of  bribery  even, 
you  will  find  no  sticb  limitation  there. 

Corruption  and  brit)ery  are  two  things.  When  you 
charge  a  corrupt  combination,  you  do  not  charge  a 
criminal  offense  under  tbe  statute ;  when  you  charge  the 
act  of  bribery,  you  charge  an  indictable  crime.  I  sub- 
mit that  the  'ruling  which  your  Honor  proposes 
to  make  is  at  war  with  every  decision  which  has  ever 
been  made  m  this  country,  or  in  any  country,  upon  a 
question  like  this.  I  am  surprised.  Sir,  that  the  in- 
genious presentation  of  this  case  by  my  learned  friends 
lias  withdrawn  your  honor's  atte'ntio'n  from  the  prin- 
ciple upon  which  cases  of  this  kind  rest.  I  never  be- 
fore heard  it  suggested  m  a  Court  of  Justice  tbat,  in 
this  country,  and  in  a  civil  action,  you  could  not  prove 
the  tru'h  'of  the  matter  alleged  in  the  libel — a  charge 
involnng  in  itself  the  very  matter  complained  of. 
You  cannot  detach  these  sentences;  the  whole  may  be 
true,  or  a  part  may  be  true ;  but  whether  the  whole,  or 
a  part  only,  is  to  be  determined  by  tbe  Jury  on  all  the 
evidence  adduced.  Now,  Sir,  I  submit  that  it  is  en- 
tirely proper  for  us  to  show — if,  as  I  suppose  we  can — 
that  Mr.  Llttlejohii  was  elected  for  the  express  pur- 
pose of  carrying  out  engagements  in  regard  to  this 
legislation ;  and  that  the  men  who  were  the  prominent 
actors  in  procuring  these  measures  were  prominent 
acto  's  in  procuring  him  to  be  renominated  and  reelected, 
and  in  placing  him  in  the  cliair  of  the  presiding  oflicer 
of  theAssembly.  I  suppose  it  to  be  entirely  competent, 
under  your  Honor's  construction  of  this  libel,  for  us 
to  prove  what  the  motives  were  that  influenced  those 
who  voted  for  those  measoi-es — not  one  but  each,  and 
all,  if  we  can. 

Your  Honor  holds  that  there  will  not  he  complete 
justification,  unless  we  bring  home  to  him  the  corrupt 
intent.  In  that  we  concur.  But  we  claim  that  this 
is  a  question  for  the  Jury,  to  be  determined  upon  the 
evidence,  llhe  corrupt  intent  is  an  inference  from  the 
facts  to  be  drawn  by  the  Jury,  and  not  a  presumption 
of  law,  to  he  deduced  by  the*  Court.  I  suppose  it  to 
be  competent  for  us  to  p'rove  tbat  votes  in  support  of 
these  measures  were  openly  bought  and  sold.  "  1  sup- 
pose it  to  be  clearly,  undeniably  competent  for  us  to 
prove  that  the  vote  which  Mr.  s'peaker  Littlejohn  cast, 
and  the  speech  which  he  delivered,  put  into  the 
pockets  of  his  brother  and  brother-iu-la  v  $SO,000.  It 


in  a  qnestion  of  fact  f.»r  this  Jnry  whether  that  was 
his  intent — whether  hi?  purpose  'was  to  defraud  the 
peo|  le  aud  to  l>ent*tit  the  nieuibera  of  his  own  house- 
hold. I  h-nbmir  there  can  bene  <|UHsfii)n  as  to  what 
would  be  the  iufenMu-o  froai  the  fa  its  proposeil  if 
proved,  for  no  two  honest  men  wouhl  diiror  as  >o  the 
dedui  tion.  I  admit  it  would  he  rouvt-nieut  to  the 
counsel  on  the  other  t-i<le  to  exclude  this  evidence. 
They  invited  ns  here,  with  tlie  assurance  that  they 
were  prejiaiedtoineet  our  jusfifit-atiun.  On  a  ]Mevi()U8 
occaeion  they  moved  to  "strike  out  the  defendaut'e 
answer.  The  motion  was  denied,  and  each  of  these 
four  auswei-8  st.mds  by  the  previous  jud^niient  of  the 
Court.  Now  tliey  jiropose  to  make  for  us  a  new  iissuo, 
and  that  is,  whether  De  Witt  C.  LitHejohn  was  bri!>ed; 
and  also  to  prescribe  the  mode  la  which  we  shall  prove 
h — by  calling  some  snbscribing  witness  to  the  fact. 
There  is  no  such  rule  of  evidence. 

If  I  am  li^jl't  in  supposinj?  that  we  have  charged 
coiTuption  in  the  answer,  will  your  Honor  say  that  we 
are  not  permitted  to  prove  ir  ?  But  if  we'  had  not 
charged  it,  we  should  in  thid  ca*e  be  at  liberty — with 
a  justification  or  witliout  a  justification — to  prove  the 
truth  of  the  allegations.  It  is  competent  evidence  in 
mitigation  of  dam^.ues,  and  the  Jurv  have  a  riyht  to 
see  the  circumstances  under  which  this  ai  tide,  alleged 
to  he  libelous,  was  issued  to  the  world.  If  it  was 
through  the  wrong,  or  even  tlie  indiscretion  of  Mr. 
Littlejohn,  it  is  a  question  which  the  Jury  have  a  right 
to  consider  in  determining  the  amount  of  damages, 
even  had  we  no  justification  ui)on  tlie  record.  If 
he.  by  his  public  act,  in  voting  $80,000  into  the 
pockets  of  his  brother  and  brother-in-law,  gave 
occa^ion  for  us  and  the  public  at  large  to  be  mis- 
led, he  is  not  entitled  to  the  same  measure  of  damages 
that  he  would  be,  un  ier  other  circumstances.  If  it  be 
established  that  the  legislation  was  corrupt,  and  that 
the  measures  wliich  rendered  it  iufamous  were  tboee 
which  were  Ciirried  over  the  Governor's  veto  by  the 
personal  vote  and  voice  of  the  pi  tin  tiff,  he  is  not  in  a 
condition  in  which  to  claim  from  the  Jury  the  same 
measure  of  redress  for  the  sujipos^d  wrong  that  he 
mitrht  if  he  could  have  said,  "  I  had  no  participation 
in  this  matter."  I  confess.  Sir,  I  am  taken  by  surprise 
at  the  doctrine  advanced — and  I  hardly  know  how  to 
meet  it,  because  it  is  so  completely  opposed  to  those 
well  settled  rules  upon  this  subject,  as  I  understand 
them,  that  it  scarcely  needs  to  be  met  by  the  views  I 
have  Rugcested.  It  seems  to  me  it  must  be  clear  to 
your  Honor  that  this  evidence  does  tend  to  establish 
the  truth  of  the  matter  charged  as  libelous — that  from 
the  facts  to  which  I  have  adverted,  in  conjunction  with 
the  other  facts  detailed  in  the  opening,  the  Jury  have 
a  right  to  presume  that  either  bribed  or  influenced 
by  personal  motives,  by  hopes  of  ambi'ion^  by  a  desire 
to  serve  his  friends  at  fhe  expense  of  his  country,  or 
by  desire  to  proujote  the  interests  of  his  party  at  the 
expense  of  his  countrv,  and  either  of  these  "is  clear, 
manifest.  un(iue8tionable  corruption.  Does  your  Honor 
believe  that  at  any  fireside  in  the  State  of  New  York, 
two  men  can  be  found  to  differ  upon  the  fjuestion; 
legislation  for  the  private  good  of  other  parties  to  the 
prejudice  of  the  public  is  corrupt  legislation  It  is 
uot  necessary  that  it  be  for  his  own  private 
emolument.  If  I  for  the  purpose  of  benefiting 
another,  sell  my  soul  or  my  vote,  I  am 
coirupt.  It  matters  not  in  this  respect  who  is 
to  be  benefited  by  it.  Is  the  motive  conu{)t  ?  I^ot — 
was  the  act  a  bribe  ?  Under  vour  Honor's  decision  no 
officer  can  in  any  event  be  charged  wuh  corruption, 
unlesb  you  can  })rove  a  direct  and  persoiwl  bribe  I  Tlie 
Press  of  this  country  is  muzzled  from  this  time  forth, 
and  corruption  may  walk  forth  unabashed  and  unre- 
bnked;  it  has  been  fuinislied  with  a  shield  here  which 
will  protect  it  everywhere.  ^My  learned  associjite  re- 
fers me  to  the  defiidfions  in  the  book.■^  of  corrui)tiou.  I 
cannot  Pto[i  to  read  tliein  or  t'»  debate  what  constirutes 
corrup'.ion.    We  have  never  yet  beard  the  sugg-.gtiou 


from  the  lips  of  man  that  a  breach  <if  a  public  trust  was 
'  not  i-orrupt,  or  that  casting  a  vote  against  <.iuVs  con- 
.  science  was  not  corruption;  that  fiilsthood  to  the  con- 
stituency who  elected  an  oliicer  to  tiie  Ass^mhly  is  not 
corrnptitm;  that  falr-e)ioo<l  to  the  State  iu  whose  Capi- 
tol a  man  sits  a^  prvhidir^g  otlicer  of  a  deliberative  body 
,  is  not  L'ori  ui)t.    ^^'e  have  not  charged  bribery.    We  do 
j  charge  conuption.    And  if  we  shiUl  prove  that  oorruii- 
tion  by  bribery,  it  does  not  weaken  our  case.  Our  only 
I  rearon  for  refraining  to  specify  the  particular  forms  of 
corrui)tion  is  tha;  somo  of  our  witnesses  arc  adverse  to 
j  us,  and  what  they  will  prove  we  do  not  fully  know. 
I  But  we  do  know  that  we  can  prove  facts,  which  if  un- 
contradicted will  leave  no  two  honest  men  at  variance 
as  to  what  was  the  motive  for  the  official  action  of  the 
plaintiff  who  has  invited  u^  here  to  investigate  it,  aud 
now  seeks  to  shun  investig-ation. 

Mr.  Skdgwk  k— It  is  a  pretty  early  stage  of  the  case 
to  argue  an  ajjpeal  from  your  Honor's  decision,  but.  if 
such  is  to  be  the  order,  I  desire  to  say  a  word.  I  say 
no  fair-minded  man  can  read  the  libel  for  which  we 
have  brought  this  defendant  into  Court,  without  giving 
it  the  construction  which  has  been  given  to  it  by  the 
Court.  It  is  iu  eveiy  sense  a  reasonable,  just,  and 
proper  construction  of  the  language.  It  is  what  the 
author  meant  when  he  wrote  it,  and  what  he  leaves 
his  counsel  to  disguise.  Is'ow,  if  that  is  a  proper  con- 
struction of  the  li.tl,  if  that  is  what  he  meant  to 
charge,  I  say  it  is  entirely  immaterial  what  is  the  char- 
acter of  the  legislation  which  they  seek  to  bring  ia 
here.  A  man  may  be  just  as  corrupt  in  voting  for  a 
good  measure  in  the  Legislature  as  for  a  bad  one;  it  i& 
the  motive  that  operates  upon  him  that  is  to  try  that, 
and  not  the  churac;ter  of  the  legislation.  If  it 
had  been  just  that  railroad  bill  that  Gov.  Morgan 
would  have  drawn  up,  witliout  any  object  or  interest, 
of  couise,  or  any  personal  consiueraiiou ;  if  it  tiad 
been,  for  instance,  the  bill  overruling  the  Court  and 
orgauiz  ng  the  iSinth-avenne  Kailroad,  it;  would  not 
have  been  the  question  whether  that  was  good  or  bad, 
but  whether  Mr.  Littlejohn's  votes  upon  it  were  cast 
upon  public  grounds  or  upon  private  grounds?  whether 
cast  for  what  he  believed  to  be  tiie  public  interest,  or 
what  he  knew  to  be  his  own  corru})t  personal  interest  1 
I  don't  confine  the  question  to  a  ({uestion  of  bribe,  nor 
does  the  Court;  it  is  a  question  of  impuie,  personal,  in- 
terested motive,  operating  upon  him.  It  matters  uot 
whether  the  bill  was  drawn  by  the  Governor  in  the 
Executive  Chamber,  or  whether  concocted  by  the 
men  who  have  been  named  here  this  morning  as"  those 
who  concocted  the  corrupt  legisla:ion  for  the  Citv  of 
New-York.  It  is  a  matter  entirely  indifferent,  'fhe 
argument  of  the  counsel  who  has  sat  down  is 
precisely  the  same  argument,  presented  before,  only 
perhaps  more  compact,  and  iu  a  terser  form.  He  pro- 
})Otes  to  prove  that  the  legislation  itself  was  corrupt, 
which  it  may  be  in  various  ways.  It  may  have  been 
gotten  up  by  interested  parties,  deceitfully  and  cor- 
ruptlully;  it  may  have  been  carried  through  the  Leg- 
islature by  wholesale  bribery  of  others,  so  that  three- 
fourths  of  the  members  who  voted  for  the  measure 
were  directly  hi ibed  for  their  votes;  and  yet  a  man 
may  have  voted  with  these  corrupt  members,  and  may 
have  advocated  the  measure,  andttill  be  as  little  liable 
to  the  charge  of  bribery  or  corrujition  as  anybody  who 
voted  against  the  measure  from  the  beginning.  There 
is  a  distinction.  It  is  the  motive  which 
operates  on  the  member  who  gives  his  vote  in  a  par- 
ticular case,  that  decides  whether  it  is  a  just,  fair  and 
honest  vote  ti>r  whut  he  supposes  to  be  the  beet  meas- 
ure that  can  be  procured — or  whether  it  is  cast  with- 
out regard  to  the  merits  of  the  question  and  for  some 
corrupt  personal  motive.  Now,  here  is  a  distinction 
which  the  (  ouusel  wholly  loses  si^ht  of.  lie  endeav- 
ors to  put  it  one  side;  to  put  it  out  of  the  case  and  to 
argue  that  if  the  legi-lution  was  bad,  or  if  any  of  the 
ii  embers  concerned  were  gidlfy,  then  were  all  guilty 


29 


of  corruption  and  therefore  cculd  be  libeled  in  the 
manner  in  -which  Mr.  Littlejohn  has  been  libeled  by 
the  defendant  ia  this  case.    Now  look  at  this  second 
answer;    it  is  the  only  one    left    in    the  case, 
except   the   5th;    aud    you  will  see,    they  have 
there    specified  the   various    acts    of  legislation 
which    they   say    are    corrupt.     I   undertake  to 
say  in  reply  to  what  has  been  suggested  I ly  the  coun- 
sel; that  in  no  one  of  these  roe-risuree  of  legislation  is 
any   relative  of  Mr.  Liitleiohn    interested  to  the 
amount  of  $10,000  or  40  cents,  or  ever  has  been.  We 
desire  to  do  away  with  that,  and  that  when  they  come 
to  the  proof  we  shall  see  what  there  is  of  it.    I  desire 
to  do  away  with  the  impression  that  is  sought  to  be 
made  upon  the  Court,  by  the  assej  tion  in  such  broad, 
emphatic  terms.     There  is  not  one  word  of  truth  in 
it.    We  challenge  investigation,  that  anything  or 
anybody  connected  with  hiui  has  operated  in  the  least 
degree, 'in  the  remotest  manner,  upon  him  ii  giving 
the  vote  wliich  he  gave  for  these  measures.    We  do 
not  pretend  to  say  they  are  shutout  from  testimony; 
that  is  not  the   purport   of   the   decision;  but  it 
is,    that    they    shall    prove    what    they  have 
charged.      The   difficulty    is,    the    counsel  says 
they  have  charged  one  thing,    and  the  Court  has 
given  a  different  construction  to  the  language  they 
have  used.    If  the  Court  is  right,  then  this  evidence 
about  which  they  talk,  unless  it  goes  to  the  charge  of 
personal  corruption,  personally  interested  motives  by 
bribery  or  otherwise  of  the  plaintiff,  is  entirely  for- 
eign to  the  case,  and  there  is  no  reasoning  or  authority  ! 
thiat  can  alter  this  conclu^ion.    The  counsel  insists  I 
upon  a  construction  of  the  libel,  which  I  say  i?  an  un- 1 
fiir,  di?ingenuous,  dishonest  construction  of  the  lan- 
guage.  It  is  not  what  was  intended  at  the  time  it  was  I 
written.    There  is  where  we  differ.   The  evidence 
that  would  be  competent  to  show  corrupt  legislation,  ■ 
then,  is  an  entirely  different  class  of  evidence  from 
tnat  whioh  goes  to  show  that  Mr.  Littlejohn  is  a  cor-  j 
rupt  legislator;  that  his  motives  were  bad,  or  that  he 
was  bribed,  or  operated  upon  by  appliances  that  were 
improper  to  be  brought  to  bear  upon  a  legislator.    If  , 
the  libel  is  what  they  say  it  is,  then  our  cause  of  action  | 
fails  entirely,  and  we  are  not  entirled  to  sustain  this  ' 
action,  because  one  member  of  a  Legislature  cannot  ! 
maintaiu  an  action  which  charges  legislative  corruption  j 
on  the  whole  body;  it  is  entirely  too  general.    If  their  j 
construction  of  the  libel  prevails  the  suit  must  be  dis-  | 
missed.    So  that,  after  all,  we  necessarily  come  back,  | 
in  the  discussion  of  this  question,  to  the  point,   what  j 
does  the  libel,  fairly  construed,  mean?    If  it  means! 
what  we  claim,  then  it  excludes  all  this  mdss  of  evi- 
dence that  is  offered  as  to  how  these  Kailroad  bills  ' 
were  got  up;  who  was  interested,  and  what  was  done  ; 
by  other  parties,  as  entirely  foreitrn  to  the  case.   We  i 
come  directly  to  the  point  whether  Mr.  Littlejohu's  ; 
votes  were  corrupt  votes  ?    Whether  he  was  affected 
by  coiTuption  or  venality,  or  by  personal,  unworthy, 
illegal,  interested  motives;  and  that  is  the  principle 
that  is  to  control  the  e^-idence  in  their  case.  That  is,  to  | 
draw  a  line  between  this  great  mass  of  evidence  which  j 
is  entirely  foreign  to  the  case  and  that  which  gots  to  I 
bring  home  to  Mr.  Littlejohn  corrupt,  or  venal,  or  in- 
terested m.otives  in  the  votes  which  he  gave. 

The  Court — It  would  doubtless  be  no  impediment 
on  the  judgment  or  discrimination  of  any  man  to 
admit  that  his  views  might  be  somewhat  shaken  by 
the  very  ingenious  and  able  argument  of  the  Counsel 
for  the  defendiint — an  argument  that  I  listened  to  with 
great  pleasure — yet  I  am  not  shaken  in  the  view 
which  I  take  of  tliis  case;  and  have  only  to  reiterate 
the  decision  that  I  have  already  made.  This  question, 
it  seeme  to  me,  might  have  been  decided  before  we 
came  down  to  thfs  trial,  upon  a  demurrer  to  the 
answer  which  would  perhaps  have  settled  the  legal 
principles  under  which  this  trial  should  take  place. 
But  the  question  is  here  now,  upon  the  pleadings  as  ^ 
they  exist,  and  must  be  disposea  of.  But  I  will  not  \ 
say  that  my  opinion  may  not  change  hereafter,  upon  j 
further  retfectiou,  or  further  argument ;  but  at  present 


it  is  decided,  and  clear,  that  the  construction  which  I 
have  given  to  tljis  libel,  is  the  true  construction;  and 
being  so  it  involves  a  charge  of  personal  corruption, 
and  is  only  sasceptible  of  defense  by  proving  a  state 
of  facts  that  brings  it  up  to  that  point  of  proof.  It  is 
not  enough  that  you  make  proof  of  general  corruption 
in  the  Legislature;  that  10,  20  or  50  men  were  person- 
ally corrupted;  that  does  not  show  that  the  plainiitl 
in  this  case  was  actuatea  by  corruption  or  mer- 
cenary motives  in  the  part  which  he  took  in 
that  legislation.  That  would  be  trying  his  case 
while  you  tried  the  matters  and  case  of  other  corrupt 
men;  and  no  principle  of  justice,  I  think,  would 
authorize  that.  This  inquiry  would  be  undoubtedly  a 
very  interesting  one,  and  a  A-ery  important  one;  and  I 
may  confess  to  a  very  pardonable  curiosity  myself  to 
have  this  whole  investigatiou  opened  up,  aud  the 
public  would  doubtless  receive  a  beiiefit  from  it.  It 
would  require  doubtless  no  great  stretch  of  the  imag- 
ination to  conceive  a  state  of  facts  which  would  both 
astonish  and  shock  the  public  mind.  But  this  is  not 
the  arena  in  which  these  things  are  to  be  tried.  We 
are  not  engaged  in  a  legislative  investigation,  we  are 
trying  the  rights  of  an  individual,  a  pure  question  of 
libel  between  two  private  parties;  and  in  so  trying,  in 
accordance  with  the  rules  of  law,  we  are,  in  my  judg- 
ment, confined  to  the  precise  issue,  which  I  think  "is 
only  legitimate  before  thi^  Jury,  and  which  I  have  in- 
dicated in  the  decision,  that  these  oilers  are  not  proper; 
but  the  proof  must  be  ccl  fined  to  the  precise  point 
which  1  have  indicated  in  deciding  the  question. 

After  a  short  consultation,  the  defendant's  counsel 
made  the  following  offers  to  prove : 

OFFERS  TO  PROVE. 

First :  The  defendant  offers  to  prove  that  the  acts 
set  forth  in  the  answer  were  severally  passed  by  the 
votes  of  members  of  the  Assembly,  of* whom  a  majority 
were  bribed  to  vote  theretor,  and  who  voted  therefor 
corruptly ;  aud  the  defendant  claims  that  this  proof  is 
admissible  for  the  purpose  of  justifying  a  portion  of  the 
matter  charged  as  libelous,  proposing  to  follow  it  up 
with  proof  justifying  the  residue. 

Excluded.    Exception  for  defendant. 

Second  :  The  defeudaut  offers  to  prove  the  same 
facts  ia  mitigation  of  damages. 

Excluded.    Exception  for  defendant , 

Thh-d :  The  defendant  offers  to  prove  the  same  facts 
for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  truth  of  the  article  not 
embraced  in  the  complaint,  but  read  in  evidence  in  ag- 
gravation of  damages. 

Excluded.    Exception  for  defendant. 

FoiirLh :  The  defendant  offers  to  prove  the  same 
facts,  and  that  the  plaintiff'  voted  for  and  supported  in 
debate  the  passage  of  those  acts,  with  notice  that  a 
majority  of  those  who  supported  them  were  bribed, 
and  that  certain  of  the  parties  soliciting  their  passage 
aud  seeking  the  benefit  thereof  had  bribed  them,  claim- 
ing that  this  evidence  is  admissible  for  the  purpose  of 
justifying  the  article  alleged  to  be  libelous. 

Excluded.    Exception  for  defendant. 

Fifth  :  Offers  same  facts  as  in  last  proposition  in 
mitigation  of  damages. 

Excluded.    Exception  for  defendant. 

Sixth  :  Offers  same  facts  to  show  the  truth  of  the 
article  from  The  Tribune  read  in  evidence  in  aggra- 
vation of  damages. 

Excluded.    Exception  for  defendant. 

Srventh:  OHiers  to  show  that  certain  members  of  the 
Assembly  who  voted  for  the  Kailroad  bills  mentioned 
in  the  answer  did  so  under  and  in  pursuance  of  a  cor- 
rupt agreement  with  parries  named  as  grantees  of  the 
franchises  conferred  in  the  acts,  to  apportion  and  divide 
the  proceeds  of  such  franchises  exceeding  two  millions 
of  dollars  between  them  and  private  friends  of  such 
members,  embracing  among  others  the  brother  and 
brother-in-law  of  the  plaintiff;  and  that  the  plaintiff, 
with  notice  of  theee  facts,  and  for  the  purpose  of  secar- 
iug  such  benefit  to  his  brother  aud  brother-in-law,  and 


30 


knowing  that  puch  bills  were  prejudicial  to  the  public  , 
interet't,  voted  for  and  advocated  tliom  in  dehate,  and 
exercised  hie  iiitliu'nce  over  otiier  incmberH  of  tlie 
House  to  secure  their  passxpfe — the  defendant,  daiiuiiig  ' 
that  this  evidence  is  aduiitisible  iu  juttilicatiou  of  the  , 
charge  of  corru{^>tiou.  | 

Excluded.  Lxcention  for  defendant.  i 
KiL^ltth:  Olfere  to  snow  the  same  facts, with  the  further 
fact  that  the  plaiiititf  iu  violation  of  the  rules  of  the 
House,  permitted  his  brotlier  and  brother-in-law,  and 
other  parties  to  be  benefited,  to  be  admitted  upon  the 
Hoor  of  the  Assembly  during  the  set^pions  thereof,  when 
they  were  not  entitled  thereto;  the  defendant  claiming 
that  from  all  these  facts  tlie  Jury  would  have  the 
riuht  to  infer  a  corrupt  intent  on  the  part  of  the  plaintilf. 

Excluded.    Exception  for  defendant. 

Ninth:  OHers  to  show  all  the  facta  stated  in  the 
foregoing  propositiors.  Claiming  that  the  Jury  have  a 
right  to  inter  theretrom,  that  the  pluintitf  in  voting  tor 
said  acts,  respectively  did  so  from  corrupt  motives  and 
for  private  objects  in  violation  of  his  oaths  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Assembly. 

Excluded.    Exception  for  the  defendant. 

We  claim  that  it  is  a  "luestion  for  the  Jury,  whether 
the  article  claimed  to  be  libelous,  charged  tbe  i)laintiff 
with  corruption. 

The  plaintitis  counsel  retired  for  a  short  consulta- 
tion: and  when  they  retumed  made  the  lollowing  ob- 
jection: 

The  plaintiff  objects  to  these  propositions,  and  each 
and  everyone  of  them;  as  "inadmissible  in  e\ndence 
under  tbe"  ruling  of  the  Court ;  except  that  the  defend- 
ant may  be  allowed  to  show  that  the  brother  and 
brother-in-law  of  the  plaintiff,  or  either  of  them,  was 
interested,  tj  the  knnirlrdfre  of  the  pJaintijI',  in  any 
stock  in  any  of  the  roads'^  urnnt(^  in  th,e  difcnda nts 
su-cr  to  hix  complaint,  ioidilhsit  vote  upon  any  of 
the  said  bills  was  influenced  by  such  knowledge. 

The  Court  sustained  the  objection,  under  the  ruling 
already  given. 

Exception  for  defendant. 

Mr.  PoRTKR — We  ofler  to  prove  further,  the  facts 
stated  in  the  first  defense. 

Excluded.   Exception  for  defendant. 

We  offer  to  prove  the  facts  stated  in  the  third  de- 
fense. 

Excluded.    Exception  for  defendant. 
We  offer  to  prove  the  facts  in  the  fourth  defense. 
Excluded.    Exception  for  defendant. 
We  also  offer  to  prove  them  separately  in  mitigation 
of  damage?. 
Excluded.    Exception  for  defendant. 

TESTDIONY  OF  3IR,  CONKLING  CONTINUED. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Sedgwick. 

Q.  Did  you  understand  Mr.  Littlejohn  to  state  that 
he  had  any  conversation  or  personal  interview  with 
the  Corporation  officers  of  the  City  of  New- York  ? 

Objected  to  on  the  ground  that  the  witness  had 
already  given  the  language.  Objection  overruled. 
Exception  for  defendant. 

A.  I  understood  Mr.  Littlejolm  to  say  that  he  had 
information  from  the  public  authorities  of  the  city,  but 
not  that  it  had  been  given  in  any  direct  personal  inter- 
view or  communication. 

Q.  That  he  had  l)een  informed  that  =uch  were  their 
views  ?    A.  That  he  liad  information  on  that  subject. 

Q.  Did  he  say  he  had  seen  or  had  any  direct  "com- 
niunicatien  with  Mr.  Bronson  ?  A.  Xo,  8ir,  I  did  not 
understand  him  to  make  any  such  a-^sertion. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether,  when  you  made  the 
statement  that  these  judgments  were'  invalid  and 
fraudulent,  and  would  be  set  aside — do  you  remem- 
ber whether  Mr.  Littlejohn  was  in  the  House  ?  A.  I 
am  very  confident  he  was. 

Q. — Did  you  see  him.    Do  you  remember  that  you 


^  The  Belt  Road,  in  which  MesBrs.  R.  H.  ThompBon  and  F.  S. 
LiltJejohn  are  stockholders,  is  not  named  in  the  said  answer. 


saw  him  ?  A. — 1  know  that  the  remarks,  which  I 
have  referred  to  as  having  been  made  by  tlie  Sjieaker, 
were  made  m  re[)ly  to  a  speech  of  my  own,  in  wliich  I 
made  tln'se  statements — that  these  judgments  were 
founded  in  fraud  and  collusion ;  and" his  rejily  to  that 
was,  that  tlie  Corporation  Counsel  had  pronounced 
them  good  and  valid  judgments,  as  he  was  informed — 
not  informed  personally,  but  that  he  had  this  infor- 
mation from  the  public  authorities. 

O. — That  was  in  reply  to  you  /  A. — That  was  in 
rej  ly  to  my  speech. 

Q. — Now,  Sir,  at  the  time  of  that  debate,  do  you 
remember  that  a  member  of  the  House  rose  and  stated 
that  iMr.  LitilMjohn  was  a  member  of  the  Board  of 
Land  Commissioners,  and  asked  him  to  state  what  lie 
knew  of  the  matter  ?  A. — I  think  nothing  of  the  kind 
occuned. 

Q. — Have  you  any  memory  on  the  subject,  whether 
SUCH  was  or  was  tot  the  fact  ?    Whether  he  was  not 
directly  appealed  to  by  a  member  of  the  House,  as  one 
of  thai,  Board,  for  his  knowledge  ou  the  subject  ?  A. 
j  My  recollection  is  distinct  as  to  the  order  in  which  the 
i  debate  proceeded;  aud  it  is,  that  the  Sficaker  followed 
me  immediately  witliout  any  such  appeal  as  has  been 
referred  to  being  made  by  any  member. 
\     Q. — Then  there  was  no  such  appeal  mar?e  ?   A. — To 
<  the  best  of  my  knowledge  aud  recollection  no  such 
1  appeal  was  made. 

i  Q.  Have  you  i-ecently  examined  any  report  of  that 
I  debate  ?   A'  I  have  not. 

I  Q.  Have  you  had  any  personal  difficulty  with  Mr. 
I  Littlejohn  ?    A.  I  have  had  controversies  with  him  in 

the  House  of  Assembly  of  this  State. 
Q.  Were  they  of  a  jiersonal  character?   A.  Perhaps 

in  oue  instance  they  might  have  been.    Mr.  Littlejohn 

made  charges  against  me. 
Q.  Never  mind  the  cause.    Did  you  attend  the 

caucus  that  was  held  at  the  last  Legislature  to  oppose 
1  his  election  for  Speaker  ?    A.  I  did  not.    I  was  not  in 

Albany  at  the  time  at  all. 

TESTIMONY    OF  HORACE   GREELEY,  SWORN  FOR 
DEFENSE. 
Examined  by  Mr.  Williams, 
j     Q.  You  are  the  defendant  in  action  ?  _  A.  Yes,  Sir. 
I     Q.  What  were  your  personal  relations  vnXh  Mr. 
Littlejohn  on  the  2Gth  day  of  September  last,  and 
prior  to  that  time  ? 
Objected  to.    Objection  overruled. 
A.I  believe  they  were  good ;  always  good  so  far  as 
1  I  can  recollect.    We  have  been  acfiuainted  al)Out  _  20 
years,  and  I  have  no  knowledge  of  any  personal  diffi- 
'  culty,  or  political,  between  us  during  that  time,  except 
in  regard'to  these  measures  of  that  Legislature. 
I     Q.  Had  you  any  personal  unkindness  toward  him, 
growing  out  of  that  matter  ?    A.I  had  not.  Sir. 
!    Q.  Or  at  the  time  of  tliis  publication  of  the  26th  of 
September  ?    A.  No,  Sir. 

!  Q.  Had  you  at  any  time  any  malice  toward  Mr.  Lit- 
tlejohn, of  any  kind,  or  nature,  or  description,  or  for 
any  cause  whatsoever  ?   A.  I  am  not  aware  gf  any. 

i  Q.  On  the  26th  day  of  September,  at  the  time  of  the 
publication  of  the  article  in  question,  1  w^ant  to  know 
if  you  believed  the  statement  to  be  true 

'    Objected  to  as  incompetent.    Objection  overruled. 

'  Exception  for  jilaintiif. 

[     A.  Yes,  Sir,  I  did. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Sedgwick. 

Q.  You  say  you  had  no  malice  or  unkindness  except 

'  what  grew  out  of  tiiese  bills  /    A.  I  am  not  aware  of 

i  any — I  mean  previous  to  this  time. 

Q.  Now,  Sir,  did  you  not  attack  him  in  your  paper 

i  upon  grounds  entiiely  personal  previous  to  that  time  ? 
A.  I  am  not  aware  that  I  so  attacked  him. 

Q.  Did  you  before  or  immediately  after  this  publi- 
cation, without  any  sub8e(iuent  ground,  attack  him  for 

:  private  transactions  not  connected  with  these  political 
acts  ?  A.  I  think  not,  Sir.  In  tbe  article  partly  read 
by  Mr.  Marsh,  Times  stated  in  a  letter  from 


81 


Oswego,  that  Mr.  Littlejohn  had  been  making  a  very- 
severe  attack  upon  me;  had  "handled  me  without 
gloves,"  and  BO  on;  and  that  hig  character  was  estab- 
lished in  Oswego.  Well,  Sir,  I  had  undei stood  that  a 
requisition  was  once  issued  by  the  Governor  of  Illinois 
for  Mr.  Littlejohn,  and  I  said  if  the  Governor  of  this 
State  had  answered  the  requisition  made  by  the  Gov- 
ei-nor  of  Illinois,  his  character  would  have  been  estab- 
lished in  Chicago  as  well  as  in  Oew^ego.  But  I  was 
mistaken ;  there  was  no  requisition  for  him. 

Q.  Had  you  any  information,  except  in  general 
terms,  of  what  be  had  said  in  regard  to  you  ?  A.  I 
had  tbe  information  read  last  night  that  I  was  "  handled 
without  gloves,"  called  a  calumniator,  &c. 

Q.  Had  you  attacked  Mr.  Littlejohn  before  the  26th 
of  September  by  name  ?  A.  I  think  never,  separate- 
ly from  others;  I  was  repeatedly  asked,  are  you  in 
favor  of  reelecting  those  Republicans  who  voted  for 
those  corrupt  measures  ?  and  I  said,  never. 

Q.  The  question  I  put  was,  whether  you  had  at- 
tacked Mr.  Littlejohn  by  name  in  your  paper  repeated- 
^  before  the  26th  of  September, 'charging  him  with 
corrupt  legislation  in  connection  with  those  measures 
or  any  otheis  ?    A.  In  tbe  article  read  he  was  named. 

Q.  I  mean  prior  to  September,  and  during  tbe  Win- 
ter of  1860  ?  A.  1  have  no  recollection  of  it ;  I  might 
have  said  so. 

Q.  Don't  you  remember  whether  you  had  named 
him?    A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Do  you  refer  to  private  communicatious  when 
you  say  you  had  so  often  stated  your  opinions  ?  A.  I 
referred  to  pub  icaiions. 

Q.  Then  you  had  published  your  opinions  before  ? 
A.  This  article  does  not  refer  to  him  alone. 

Q.  I  mean  whether  you  included  him  among  other 
persons?    A.  I  c id,  Sir. 

Q.  Had  you  been  inquired  of  with  regard  to  tbe 
propriety  of  Mr.  Littlejohn' s  nomination  I  A.  Xo, 
Sir,  but  with  regard  to  tbe  propriety  of  Republicans 
voting  to  reelect  members  who  had  supported  those 
measures. 

Q.  Had  you  been  inquired  of  specifically  as  to  the 
propriety  of  Littlejohn's  nomination?  A.  Lictlejobn 
and  Myers,  I  thiuk  the  inquiry  was  in  that  case. 

Q.  This  was  a  private  in(iuiiy;  was  Mr.  Littlejohn 
named  in  it  ?   A.  I  am  quite  sure  he  was. 

Q.  Who  was  it  written  by?    A.  I  don't  remember. 

Q.  Was  it  a  nameless  man  ?  A.  Well,  Sir,  your  ques- 
tions force  me  to  say  that  it  so  happen^  that  I  did  not 
w^rite  the  article  on  which  this  suit  is  founded, 
but  I  do  not  wish  to  evade  any  responsibility  for  it. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  the  writer  of  that  article 
had  any  malice  ?  A.  I  think  he  did  not  even  know 
Mr.  Littlejohn.' 

Q.  Wbo"^  was  the  writer  ?  A.  Mr.  Charles  A.  Dana, 
one  of  my  associates. 

Q.  Who  was  this  correspondent?  A.  I  don't 
know. 

Q.  Then  you  never  saw  the  letter?  A.  Xo,  Sir,  I 
did  not;  but  I  know  that  similar  inquiries  were  made 
of  me. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  withdrawn  the  charge  contained 
in  that  article  in  reepect  to  the  Gov€rnor  of  Illinois  on 
finding  that  it  was  untrue  ?  A.  I  offered  to  withdraw 
it  before  my  suit  was  commenced ;  I  oft'ered  to  state 
the  exact  fact. 

Q.  Offered  to  state  what  fact  ?  A.  I  don't  wish  to 
call  other  people's  names  here. 

Q.  Did  you  offer  to  retract  it.without  qualification 
as  to  Mr.  Littlejohn  ?  A.  Certainly,  as  regards  Mr. 
Littlejohn. 

^  Q.  Without  qualification  ?  A.  I  had  to  state  to 
him  

Q.  The  substance  of  it  is,  you  oflfered  to  retract  as 
to  him  by  stating  the  facts  as  to  another  ?  A.  There 
was  another  person  whose  name  I  did  not  wish  to 
mention. 

Q.  Then  to  make  an  unqualified  retraction  you 
never  did  ofi'er  ?   A.  So  far  as  concerned  Mr.  L.,  I  did 


offier  to  retract,  and  to  say  I  was  undtr  a  misappre- 
heni-ion  when  I  made  tbe  statement. 

Q.  Why  not  retract  it  w^hen  you  found  it  was 
i  wrong  ?    You  had  control  of  the  columns  of  your  pa- 
per, hadn't  you  ?    Why  not  state  that  you  were  mie- 
taken,  if  you  had  no  malice  ?    A.  1  should  very  glad- 
:  ly  have  stated  so.    You  will  see  the  reason  why  I  did 
'  not,  in  a  letter  which  I  wrote  to  Mr.  Marsh. 

Q.  Why  could  you  not,  when  you  found  out  it  was 
i  not  true,  take  it  back  and  say  it  was  not  true  1   A.  I 
,  had  not  made  a  false  accusation ;  I  had  been  mistaken 
in  regard  to  the  man. 

j     Q.  The  question  is  why,  having  found  out  the  accu- 
j  sation  against  Mr.  Littlejohn  was  unfounded,  you  did 
not  retract  it  voluntarily  in  your  paper,  over  which 
you  had  control  ?    A.  Well,  Sir,  because  I  could  not 
I  state  all  the  circumstances  without  injuring  another 
person  whom  I  wished  very  much  not  to  injure, 
j     Q.  Could  you  not  state  that  your  information  with 
'  regard  to  Mr.  Littlejohn  was  unfounded,  and  stop 
I  there?   A.  It  was  noli  exactly  unfounded;  it  was  mis- 
taken. « 

Q.  Mistaken  by  you  or  the  person  who  informed  you  ? 
A.  I  certainly  thought  I  was  right  when  I  made  the 
statement. 

Q.  Was  you  ever  told  that  Mr.  Littlejohn  was  sent 
for  by  the  Governor  of  IlUnois  ?     A.  I  now  think, 
;  Sir,  that  when  the  information  was  given  Mr.  Litile- 
ijohuwasnot  mentioLed;   but  I  certainly  thought  I 
was  correct  as  to  the  complaint  I  heard  of  our  Gov- 
:  ernor  for  not  answering  the  Illinois  requisition. 

Q.  You  then  di-i  publish  tliat  article  making  that 
accusation,  that  Mr.  Littlejohn  had  been  indicted  in 
Illinois,  without  having  been  so  informed  byffcy  per- 
son ?  A.  I  don't  think  the  accusation  was  so  broad  as 
you  state  it. 

Q.  When  you  found  and  was  informed  that  the  per- 
son communicating  the  information  had  not  mentioned 
Mr.  Littlejohn,  why  clidn"t  you  say  that  in  your  paper, 
and  thus  end  the  matter  ?  A.  iBecause  I  felt  that  it 
i  was  my  right  to  state  all  the  circumstances  which  led 
me  into  that  mistake,  so  as  not  to  expose  myself  un- 
justly to  the  charge  of  having  fabricated  the  charge; 
and  I  thought  Mr.  Littlejohn  would  not  desire  to  have 
me  state  them. 

Q.  That  was  the  reason  you  did  not  take  it  back  ? 
A.  I  was  then  threatened  with  a  libel  suit;  still,  I 
offered  then  to  mnke  the  statement. 

Mr.  Marsh — Q.  Have  you  got.  the  lettei-  which 
threatened  you  with  a  libel  suit  ?  A.  No;  I  suppose 
you  have  it. 

Q.  Was  you  threatened  with  a  suit  ?  A.  I  so  un- 
;  derstoodit. 

j     Q.  Were  you  not  informed  distinctly  that  if  you 
would  retract  the  charges  that  was  all  that  was  asked 
,  of  you  ? 

[Objected  to  on  the  ground  that  the  paper  is  in  ex- 
istence, and  should  be  shown  to  the  witiit-^s,  and  that 
the  paper  being  in  writing  is  the  best  evidence.  Ob- 

'  jectiou  sustained  ] 

j     [Exception  tor  plaint iftM 

■     Q.  Have  you  the  letter  which  Mr.  Marsh  addressed 
to  you  1   A.  I  have  not  heie;  I  suppose  I  have  it 
;  somewhere. 

Q.  Is  that  a  copy  of  it  [showing  witness  a  paper]  ? 
I  A.  I  could  not  remember  exactly, 
i     Q.  Is  that  your  letter  ?    [Showing  witness  another 
i  letter].   A.  That  is  my  handwriting,  and  that  is  the 
letter  I  wrote. 

I  Q.  Well,^  is  that  a  copy  of  the  other  letter  ?  A.  1 
i  pre*>ume  it  is,  but  I  don't  know. 

I    The  Coimsel  for  the  defendant  objected  to  the  paper 
I  which  was  a  copy,  on  the  grounds:  First,  That  it  was 
not  proved  to  be*a  copy.    Second,  That  if  pi  oved  to 
be  a  copy  it  is  inadmissible  for  that  very  reason. 
Objection  sustained. 
I    The  Counsel  for  the  plaintiff'  then  offered  in  e-vidence 
;  the  letter  of  Mr.  Greeley,  which  Mr.  Greeley  himself 
read  to  the  J ury  as  follows : 


32 


O  FiTK  OF  The  TitinrNR,  ) 
Nk.W-Yokk.  Nov.  26,  18G0.  J 

Gknti  f.mkn:  1  liavo  your  lett<»r  oi  the  24tli  thi»  inomont. 

A  ullusioji  to  Mr.  Littlejnhii  in  Thk  Tuiiu'.nk  occurs  to 

.ne  as  having  j-ivcn  warrnnt  for  your  dtMiiund     It  was  that  in 

hich  1  spoke  of  his  having  been  wanted  in  Illinois.  My  au- 
thority for  that  stttteiu'"!  t  is  John  W  eut worth,  Miiyor  of  Chicago ; 
li.it  it  now  occ'irs  to  nie  that  the  re(Hii-.itiou  of  Gov.  IJissell  on 
!i  >v.  Kinc  was  for  .Mr.  Kitzhugli,  the  futher-in-law  and  hu^iness 
I  trtner  of  Mr.  Littlfjohn,  not  Ibr  Mr.  L.  himself;  thon-ih  1  un- 
d»-r>taiid  lUid  bi  lieve  that  it  wa'*  on  account  of  partnership  tran- 
-iicfions.  If  Mr.  Littl.johii  desiren  that  I  shuU  ascertttin  and 
imblish  the  exact  fiicts  in  the  ca-f,  I  will  gladly  do  so.  1  have 
h.-.^i'ated  hitherto,  because  Mr.  Fitzhuuh  is  iioz  in  public  life,  is 
■11  old  UKiu.  for  whom  I  have  the  kindest  regard,  and  whom  1  do 
!  It  wish  to  drag  b<  fore  the  public  iu  any  unpleasant  connection. 
Mill,  if  Mr.  Littlejohn  desires  a  correction  of  this  statement 
piade,  I  will  do  it  cheerfully,  and  iu  exact  accordance  with  the 

ict.*. 

As  to  all  other  tuat'.ers  which  Mr.  L.  may  have  to  complain  of, 
I  have  onlv  to  say  that  I  shall  very  gladly  correct  any  niisrepre- 
seiitation  I  have  made  that  may  beshown'to  lueto  be  such.  But  I 
cuiinot  chtnge  my  opinions  with  reg-^rd  to  much  of  the  legisla- 
tion of  last  AN'inter.  w'iereof_Mr.  l.ittlejohu  was  a  proiuinent 
advocate.  1  consider  tiiat  legislation  every  Way  wrong,  unjustifi- 
able, and  corrupt ;  and,  while  1  do  not  know  that  Mr.  L.  received 
any  money  for  his  sliare  in  it.  I  deem  it  of  such  a  chiracter  that 
it  would  be  no  less  objectionable  to  my  mind  if  1  wtrecou- 
vin  ?-'d  that  he  bore  his  part  iu  it  without  hope  or  expectation 
of  reward. 

If  vou  will  point  out  to  me  the  averments  in  The  TitmrNE 
that  ^Ir.  L.  demands  should  be  retracted  or  corrected,  I  will  do 
^^ilatever  seen-.s  to  me  just,  but  no  more,  because  Mr.  L.  threat- 
ens me  with  a  libel-suit.  Indeed,  it  is  probable  that,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  such  threat,  I  might  be  induced  to  go  further  than  I 
would  otherwise  have  done.  But,  whether  threatened  or  not,  1 
shall  be  at  all  timea  ready  to  undo  any  it.justice  I  may  have  com- 
mitted. Yours, 

«  HORACE  GREELEY. 

Messrs.  M.vrsh  and  Webb,  Oswego,  N.  Y. 

Q.  I>M  you  attend  the  Legitslative  (Assemblj)  can- 
cus  of  tne"la?t  Winter  ?    A." Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Did  yua  attend  it  lor  the  purpose  of  opposiug 
Mr.  Littlejobu's  renoniinatiou  as  Speaker  ?  A.  For 
that  express  purpoee,  aud  no  other. 

L)id  you  publ  sh,  immediately  preceding  that 
cawu?,  a  charge  against  Mr.  Littlejohn,  in  your 
paper  ?    A.  1  have  no  recollection  of  it. 

Q.  Which  was  withdrawn  immediately  after  ? 
A.  There  was  something  publislied,  not  immediately 
before  that  election,  but  earlier,  which  was  corrected 
the  next  day,  I  think.  An  erroneous  statement  was 
made  in  The  Trikuxe,  not  by  me,  with  regard  to 
some  of  these  West  Washington 'Market  leases,  but  I 
contradicted  it  the  very  nexl;  day,  without  waiting  for 
any  suggestion  from  Mr.  L. 

Q.  ^Va^  it  with  regard  to  this  caucus  ?  A.  Ko,  Sir, 
I  think  not. 

Q.  Was  it  intended  to  operate  on  that  election.  A. 
I  cannot  eay,  becaue<e  I  did  not  write  n. 

Q.  Was  it  withdrawn  immediately  alter  the  election 
of  Si)eaker  ?  A.  No,  Sir;  I  think*  it  was  before — 
many  days  before  the  caucus,  according  to  my  recollec- 
tion. 

Q.  Were  you  a  candidate  for  any  office  at  that 
time  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  was  not.  Q.  Not  a  candidate  for 
Senator?  No,  Sir,  I  don't  know  that  I  was;  may  have 
been  spoken  of  among  other?. 

Q.  Hadn  t  you  .spoken  of  yours-elf  as  a  candidate  to 
members  of  the  As.-<embly  ?*  A.  No,  Sir.  I  had  not, 
neither  at  that  time  nor 'at  any  other  time;  I  never 
solicited  any  member's  supi)ort  for  tiiat  olli'-e. 

9-  Were'any  of  your  partuen  in  the  paper  there  so- 
liciting votes  for  you  as  Senator,  to  your  knowledge  ? 
A.  No,  Sir,  not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Not  Mr.  Dana'.'    A.  Nq^  Sir,  lie  was  not  there. 

Q.  Nor  Mr.  Camp  ?  A.  He  was  there  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  House. 

Q.  And  Mr.  Cleveland  ?  A.  He  is  our  Reporter 
there  every  Winter. 

Q.  Has  lie  any  interest  in  the  paper  ?    A.  No,  Sir. 

Q.  Is  he  a  relative  of  youra?  A.  He  married  a  fcis- 
terofmine. 

9.  Do  you  know  whether  either  of  them  were  so- 
liciting votes  lor  you  at  that  lime  ?  A.  I  am  very  con- 
fident thev  were  not. 


I  _Q.  Tla.- your  paper  fince  made  an  attack  upon  Mr. 
Littlejohn  in  connection  with  the  Liverpool  Consulate  ? 
A.  I  am  not  aware  that  it  has. 

Q.  Did  not  you  iiniiounce  that  he  had  declined  (re- 
ferring to  him  as  a  prominent  jiolilician)  becau8e  lie 
nmelt  fat  jobs  liere  '  A.  I  don  t  recollect  it.  Sir;  I 
have  not  publiislied  nor  written  such  a  j)aragraph. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  such  a  paragraph  in  your  paper  ? 
A.  I  can  confidently  say  ttiat  1  never  "wrote,  insti- 
gated nor  inserted  such  a  paragraph. 

Q.  At  the  time  of  the  caucus,  when  the  nomination 
was  announced,  did  you  make  any  verbal  remarks  on 
it?  A.  I  cannot  recollect  any;  I  was  very  strongly 
opposed  to  his  election,  l)ut  don't  recollect  any  remark's 
I  made. 

I  Q.  Did  you  oppose  liis  election  and  solicit  votes 
against  bim,  ciiarging  him  with  the  same  corruption  in 
office  which  you  have  charged  iu  your  paper,  in  order 
to  defeat  his  el-^ction  ? 

Objected  to  as  to  the  general  form.    Objection  over- 
:  ruled.  "  « 

I     A.I  have  no  recollection  of  saying  so,  but  I  did  o# 
pose  bim  on  account  of  those  measures,  and  I  probably 
'  said  so,  though  I  have  no  recollection  of  it. 
;     Q.  To  members  of  the  Legislature  whom  you  talked 
with  in  0]ipo!;iag  him,  did  you  repeat  in  i^ubstance  this 
publication  ?     A.  I  cannot  remember  the  words;  I 
have  no  recollection  of  the  precise  words  I  used. 
]     Q.  Don't  you  know  generally  what  arguments  you 
'  used  against  him — whether  in  substance  you  did  repeat  * 
j  what  you  had  previously  published  in  your  paper  ?  A. 
1  I  wiU'tell  you  what  was  the  substance  of  what  I  said.  ' 
I  thought  Mr.  Lucius  Kobiuson  an  houeet,  upright 
legislator,  and  I  had  not  the  same  opinion  of  Mr.  Lit- 
tlejohn. 

Q.  That  generally  is  what  you  said?   A.  That  is, 
'  in  my  judgment,  what  I  said. 

I  Q."  That,  in  your  opinion,  Mr.  Lucius  Eobinson  was 
'an  upright  man,  and  Mr.  Littlejohn  was  not?  A.  I 
i  said  legislator. 

j     Q.  Did  you  not  say  in  substance  that  he  was  guilty 

'  of  those  things  that  you  had  previously  charged  him 
with  in  your  paper  ? 

Objected  to.    Obj  ction  sustained. 

I  Ke-direct  examination,  by  Mr.  Willums — Q.  There 
is  the  paper  of  11th  of  September,  which  was  read  in 
evidence.    Is  Mr.  Littlejohu's  name  mentioned  there  ? 

{  A.  It  is  contained  in  the  lUt  of  Yeas  on  the  City  Rail- 

\  road  bills. 

I     Q.  Is  there  any  other  allusion  to  it  there  ?   A.  No, 

I  Sir;  there  is  none. 

Mr.  Williams  asked  the  counsel  for  defendant  to 
give  him  the  paper  containing  the  article  which  was 
partly  read  the  evening  before,  which  they  refused,  on 
the  ground  that  it  had  been  entirely  wuthiliawu. 

i    The  Court  took  a  recess. 

EVENING  SESSION. 
Re-direct  continued, 
i     Q.  B  -tween  the  article  that  appeared  on  the  11th  of 
September  and  the  L'6th  of  September,  did  anything 
I  appear  in  the  columns  of  The  Tima  NE  touching  Mr. 
Littlejohn,  that  you  remember  ?    A.  No,  Sir. 
i     Q.  Between  the  26th  of  September,  the  date  of  the 
,  article  in  question  here,  and  the  article  of  the  23d  of 
'  Octo'  er,  a  part  of  which  was  read  last  night,  did  any- 
thing appear  in  the  columns  of  The  Tribune  touching 
Mr.  Littlejohn  that  you  remember  ?    A.  I  remember 
none. 

Q.  At  all  events,  you  wrote  none  ?    A.  I  am  quite 
coniident  I  wrote  none. 

i  Q.  The  arti{!le  followed  immediately  on  the  article 
in  The  Times,  which  stated  that  Mr.  Littlejohn 
"handled  you  without  gloves,"  and  called  you  a 
calumniator  ?  A.  I  am  not  certain  about  the  dates. 
If  you  furnish  me  the  paper..  I  can  tell. 

C^.    Have  you  been  sued  by  Mr.  Littlejohn  for  the 

'  publication  of  this  matter,  concerning  which  you  were 


33 


inquired  of  in  your  cross-examination  ?  A.  Yes,  Sir; 
another  libel  suit  is  pendiug  on  that,  1  believe. 

Q.  Was  that  suit  brought  after  you  wrote  that 
letter -which  you  read.    A.    Yes,  Sir;  after  that. 

Q.  Your  comments,  or  whatever  was  published  in 
The  TribU-ve,  was  in  rejjly  to  those  articles  in  Tke 
Times?     A.    Yes,  Sir. 

Q.    At  the  time  of  the  publication  of  the  article  of 


Objection  sustaioed.  Exception  for  defendant. 
Q.  Had  you  any  otiier  motives  for  oppofciug  the  elec- 
tion of  Mr.  Littlejohn  to  the  Assembly  or  as  Speaker 
than  tbo.^e  that  you  have  mentioned?  A.  I  had  no 
other  motive  for  oppoting  his  election  to  the  Assembly; 
but  it  IS  quite  possible  that,  after  these  suits,  or  threats 
of  suits,  there  may  have  been  a  little  personal  feeling 
on  my  side;  1  could  not  say  that  I  had  no  personal 


the  23d  of  October,  did  you  believe  then  what  you  feeling:  on  the  1st  of  January  last.  I  certainly  did  op 
'  '      •       ^  -  ----  1"    *     T  j-j  i  pose  him  mainly  ou  account  of  our  difFerence  on  these 

I  measures;  but  I  could  not  say  I  had  the  same  feeling 
i  toward  him  l  ist  January  that  1  formerly  had. 
j     Q.  Did  you,  at  the  time  you  opposed  Mr.  Littlejohn 
I  as  candidate  for  election  to  the  Assembly  in  the  Au- 
tumn of  18G0  believe  the  measures  in  question  were 
I  corrupt  measures  ? 
i     Objected  to.    Objection  sustained, 
j     Cross-examination  resumed,  by  Mr.  Sedgwick. 
I     Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  between  the  26th  of  Sep- 
:  tember  and  the  23d  of  October  vou  did  not  write  or 


stated  in  that  article  ?    A.    I  did. 

Q.    Who  was  your  informant  on  that  point  1 

Objected  to.    Objection  sustained. 

Q.  You  were  asked  upon  the  direct  examination 
whether  you  were  told  what  was  published  in  the 
article  of  the  23d  of  October  ?  A.  I  answered  thac  I 
understood  it  so;  but  now  believe  I  was  mistaken. 

Q  — At  the  time  you  understood  it  so  ?  A.  At  the 
time  I  certainly  did. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  Mr.  Wentworth  since  ?  A.  Yes, 
Sir 


Q.  The  letter  which  you  read  was  in  reply  to  Mr.  '  publish  any  article  against  Mr.  Littlejohn?   A.  I  mean 


Littlejobn's  attorneys'  ?    A.  Yes,  Sir 

Q.  The  Messrs.  Marsh  and  Webb,  the  attorneys  who 
brought  this  suit,  and  who  brought  botu  suite  ? 
Yes,  Sir. 

Q.  Where  were  you  at  the  time  the  article  upon 
which  this  suit  was  brought  was  published  ?  A.  Ac- 
cording to  my  recollection,  I  was  away,  speaking;  I 
saw  the  article,  but  it  did  not  attract  my  attention  un- 
til this  letter  from  Marsh  and  Webb 
out  of  town. 

Q.  When  did  yon  first  see  that  article  ?  A.  I  think 
on  the  second  morning,  while  I  was  away  somewhere. 

Q.  You  were  awav,  and  got  The  Tribune,  and  saw 
it  ?   A.  Yes.  Sir. 

(^.  Prom  the  time  this  article  appeared,  have  you 
written  or  published  anything  concerning  Mr.  Little- 
john? A.  I  do  not  recollect  having  written  a  para- 
graph, except  the  aiticle  that  they  called  attention  to. 

Q.  Xone  aside  from  that?   A.'iso,  Sir;  no  other. 

Q.  Did  you  write  the  article  to  which  they  called 
your  attention  ?  A.  No,  Sir,  I  did  not ;  but  I  ^  wrote 
the  correction  which  appeared  next  day  of  a  misstate- 
ment in  it. 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say  an  article  did  appear 
concerning  this  legislation,  or  something  of  that  kind  ? 
A.  It  was  concerning  the  West  WasHiugt^^  Market 
generally,  and  with  regard  to  Mr.  Liiitlejohn,  it  made 
several  statements,  and  among  others  that  he  had 
signed  a  particular  lease  to  Taylor  and  Breeuau,  which 
I  found  the  next  day  had  not  "been  signed  by  him,  but 
by  his  predecessor. 

Q.  You  corrected  that  in  your  next  issue  ?  A.  In 
the  next  issue,  according  to  my  recollection.  I  think  it 
spoke  of  his  granting  this  ^^'est  Washington  Market 
lease,  and  the  next  day  I  think  Mr.  Taylor  called  upon 
me  and  said  "  You  have  made  a  mistake  about  Mr.  Lit- 


to  say  that  I  do  not  recollect  any  such  article. 

Q. 'Do  you  recollect  writing  an  article  in  reply  to  a 
A.  j  letter  he 'wrote  you?    A.  1  remember  such  an  arti- 
i  cle. 

Q.  Is  that  the  article  ?  [handing  witness  a  paper].  A. 
Yes,  Sir,  I  recognize  Mr.  Littlejobn's  letter,  and  that  is 
my  article  in  reply. 
Q.  That  appeared  on  the  8th  of  October?   A.  Yes, 
I  know  I  was  \  Sir. 

Counsel  for  the  defendant  moved  to  strike  out  the 
above  answers,  as  the  plaintiff  neither  oilers  nor  pro- 
poses to  offer  the  letter  in  evidence. 
Motion  denied.    Exception  for  the  defendant. 
Q.  At  what  time  was  you  in  Chicago  during  the  Fall 


I  think. 

a  in  Chicago  for  several 


'  when  this  paper  was  published  in  regard  to  Mr.  Little- 
john ?  A.  I  have  been  in  Chicago  about  the  Isr  of  Jan- 
uary for  the  three  last  years 
Q.  Then  you  had  not  b( 
months  prior  to  the  time  when  this  was  said  to  yoa 
there?  A.  No,  Sir;  that  had  been  said  to  me  in  the 
Winter  of  '58  or  '59. 

;     Q.  Then  the  publication  was  founded  upon  a  state- 
;  ment  made  to  you  two  or  three  years  before  ?    A.  Yes, 
Sir. 

Q.  Did  you  take  any  means  to  verify  your  recollec- 
tion before  the  publication  of  the  article  ?  A.  No,  Sir, 
because  I  had  no  doubt. 

i  Q.  Did  you  take  any  means  to  ascertain  the  fact 
before  this  letter  to  Marsh  and  Webb  ?  A.  No,  Su-;  I 
did  not  know  it  was  disputed. 

I  A.  After  receiving  that  ktter,  did  yon  have  any 
communication  with  Mayor  Wentworth  before  you 

I  wrote  that  answer  ?  A.'  No,  Sir,  as  the  letter  will 
show;   it  begins,  "  Yours  of  the  24th,  '  and  it  was 

:  answered  on  the  26th,  I  think. 

I     Q.  Did  you  meet  the  Committee  having  in  charge 


tlejohn."    I  looked  at  the  documents,  saw  it  was  ^  the  West  Washington  Market  bill,  and  use  your  influ 


wrong,  and  corrected  it 

Q.  Aside  from  that  article,  has  there  been  any  allu« 
sion  to  Mr.  Littlejohn  ?  A.  There  has  been  a  tele- 
graphic dispatch,  it  I  recoUect  right,  about  his  declin- 
ing the  Consulate. 

Q.  You  have  been  asked  whether  you  opposed  Mr. 
Littlejohn  for  the  office  of  Speaker  for  the  year  1861. 
Will  you  tell  the  Jury  why  vou  opposed  Mr.  Little- 
john ? 

Objected  to  as  immaterial. 
Objection  overruled.    Exception  for  plaintiff. 
A.  My  objection  was  to  the  character  of  the  legisla- 


ence  with  that  Committee  to  pass  that  bill  ?  A.  Never, 
Sir;  never. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  meet  with  them  ?    A.  Never ! 
Q.  Never  met  that  Committee  at  aU  ?   A.  Never ! 
Q.  Your  recollection  is  good  on  that  point  ?  A.  Very 
good! 

Q.  Did  you  ever  publish  in  The  Tribune,  or  was 
there  ever  published  in  The  TribUiNe,  an  article  ap- 
proving the  leasing  of  this  West  Washington  Market 
property  to  Taylor  and  Brennan  ? 
Objected  to."  Objection  sustained. 
Q.  What  was  the  circulation  of  The  Tribune  in 


tion  he  had  favored  and  supported,  and  on  account  of  j  September  and  October,  1860  ?  A.  I  think  in  all  the 
these  measures  I  thought  he  was  not  a  fit  man  for  editions — Daily,  Weekly,  and  Semi- Weekly — about 
Speaker,  and  that  his  opponent  was  a  better  man;  for  |  250,000;  but  whether  these  ariicles  were  or  were  not 
lie  had  been  in  the  preceding  Legislatdfe  and  opposed  j  published  in  all,  I  do  not  know 


these  measures. 

Q.  AVhy  were  you  opposed 
which  you  speak  ? 

Objected  to  as  immaterial. 

3 


Mr.  Williams — Q.  Did  you  make  any  exertion,  or 
to  these  meastires  of  j  did  anybody,  to  your  knowledge,  to  circulate  in  the 
Oswego  Diotrict  the  article  upon  which  this  action  is 
I  founded  ? 


34 


Objected  to.    Excluded.  1 

Mr.  Williams  read  for  defendant;  oflered  in  evi- 
dence the  veto  of  CJov.  Morgan  in  the  West  Washing- 
ton Market  bill,  and  proposed  to  read  it  from  the 
printed  Senate  Journal.  > 

Objected  to  as  not  competent  testimony.  | 

Mr.  Williams  cited  the  case  of  Turdy  agt.  The 
People  in  4  Hill,  40.*);  and  De  Bow  agt.  The  People,  in  i 
1  Denio,  14;  and  10  Howard's  U.  S.  Reports,  334  and  | 
33S;  and  7  Johnson,  oO  and  al;  and  3  Hill,  43().  | 

The  Court  said  althoutfh  the  testimony  might  be  com-  ' 
petent  p'  r  sc,  yet,  under  the  prteeni  aspect  of  the  i 
case  anil  the  present  issne,  it  must  be  excluded.  I 

ExcejUion  for  defendant.  j 

Mr.  Williams  oliered  in  evidence  an  exemplified 
copy  of  the  preamble  aTul  lesolutDu  o'lered  by  Mr. 
Littlejohn  as  one  of  tlie  members  of  the  Board  of  Laud  , 
Commissioners,  granting  the  lease  in  question  to  Tay- 
lor and  Brenuan. 

Objected  to  and  excluded.  Exception  for  defendant. 

Mr.  PouTKH  offered  in  evidence  the  acts  in  question 
to  which  the  articles  refer. 

Objected  to  and  excluded.  Exception  for  defendant. 

The  evidence  was  here  closed. 

The  Court  adjourned  till  next  uiornin». 

Thursday  Morxing,  Sept.  12,  1861.  j 
ARGUMENT   OF  JOHN  K.  PORTER   FOR   THE   DE-  j 
FENDANT.  j 

Gentleme.v:  a  few  rough  notes,  made  during  the  I 
recess,  of  the  topics  to  which  I  can  properly  restrict  the  i 
discussion,  will  enable  me,  in  some  degree,  to  abridge 
the  argument.     I  acknowledge   the  embarrassment  : 
under  which  we  present  the  case,  after  the  exclusion  of  I 
the  evidence  on  which  we  mainly  relied.   Ii  is  diffi-  : 
cult  for  a  lawyer  to  abandon  in  an  hour  the  rooted  con-  | 
victions  of  twenty  years.  We  do  not  readily  acquiesce  \ 
in  what  we  conceive  to  be  a  departure  from  the  settled  j 
principles  of  law.    To  our  faith  in  them  we  cling  tena- 
ciously, and  it  fails  us  so  rarely  that  in  that  faiih  we 
soon  grow  old,  and  part  with  cherished  rights  as  with  \ 
cherished  fjiends.    But  we  are  bound  by  the  rulings  of  , 
the  Court,  and  must  discharge  our  duty  as  we  may,  in 
conformity  with  the  devisit^ns  made  for  our  guidance.  ' 

I  have  the  honor  to  appear  befijre  you  as  one  of  the  \ 
couneel  and  defenders  of  an  alleged  libeler.  The  pub-  I 
lication  complained  of  is  in  these  words:  [ 

"  A  correspondent  earnestly  inquires  our  opinion  concerning 
the  nomination  for  members  of  the  Legislature  of  D.  C.  Littlf-- 
john  at  Uswego  and  of  Austin  Myers  at  Syracuse.    On  this  sub-  ; 
jeet  our  opinion  has  been  so  often  expressed  tliat  it  cannot  be  in  ' 
doubt.    Both  these  person.-;  were  prominent  in  the  corrupt  legis- 
lation of  last  \\'iufer.    Accordinaly,  both  of  them  ought  now  to 
be  defeated.    Or,  if  tliej-  must  be  sent  back  to  pursue  their  ca-  | 
reer  at  Albany,  it  should  not  be  the  work  of  Republican  voters."  j 

I  read  the  article,  and  understand  it.   You  read  it,  j 
and  understand  it.    You  understand  it  as  I  do.    It  i 
charges  corrupt  legislation  at  the  Capitol  in  the  Winter  j 
of  1^60.   It  charges  that  Speaker  Littlejohn  was  a 
prominent  advocate  of  that  corrui^t  legislation.    So  it  I 
was  understood  by  every  reader  of  Thk  Nkw-York  | 
Triblwe.    If  there  was* any  man  who  was  free  from  i 
all  doubt  on  that  question,  it  was  Speaker  Littlejohn.  ' 
He  called  on  the  editor  for  an  explanation  or  retraction. 
Mr.  Greelev,  in  the  noble  and  manly  letter  which  he  ; 
read  upon  tTbe  witness-stand  at  the  requcht  of  the  plain- 
titi"8  counsel,  frankly  stated  the  purpose  and  intent  of 
the  ai-ticle.    It  was  "not  to  charge  Mr.  Littlejohn  with  : 
personal  corruption,  but  with  being  a  prondnent  advo- 
cate of  measures  corrupt  in  their  tendency  and  nature, 
and  in  the  circumstances  attending  their  adoptioa. 
That  letter,  which  the  plaintiff  chose  to  withhold' from 
the  world,  he  has  uiveu  to  you.    It  ( onfirms  your  con- 
claeion.    The  article  was  intended  by  ihe  publisher  as 
it  wae  understood  by  the  reader,  axi'd  yet  you  are  told 


by  the  learned  counsel  that  the  language  has  another 
meaning  in  a  court  of  justice,  and  tiiut,  lor  ti.e  purpose 
of  a  libel  suit,  it  imputes  to  Speaker  Li  tlejohn  per- 
soiuil  corruption  and  bargaining  lor  a  bribe.  It  seems 
to  be  claimed  by  the  counsel  that  you  are  bound  to  lind 
the  defendant  gniliy  of  a  charge  which  upon  the  evi- 
dence you  believe  he  never  made^  and  that  you  are  to 
find  a  verdict  against  your  conscience  and  your  oath, 
which  is  to  rest  for  its  support  upon  the  oath  and  con- 
science of  another.  I  do  not  believe  the  Court  will  so 
instruct  you,  but,  this  is  the  theory  of  the  prosecution. 

Until  4  o'clock  yesterday  afternoon,  I  never  heard  it 
suggested  by  any  lawyer  or  layman  in  this  coutitry, 
that,  when  in  a  civil  action,  a  paper  is  read,  which  is 
claimed  to  be  libelous,  and  the  truth  of  which  is 
alleged  in  the  pleadings  by  the  defendant,  upon  his  com- 
ing to  trial  With  wiinet-ses  summoned  at  an  expense  of 
a  $1,000,  to  })rove  the  truth  of  the  allegation,  sentence 
by  sentence,  line  by  line,  and  clause  by  clause,  to  the 
satisfaction  of  a  jury,  the  truth  can  be  excluded  in  a 
court  in  which  blind  justice  holds  her  balanced  scales — 
unless  the  defendant  shall  go  further  and  prove  in  addi- 
tion the  truth  of  charges  he  never  made.  Hitherto,  by 
the  common  understanding  of  all  American  lawyers 
and  jurists,  it  has  been  deemed  an  absolute  right  to 
aver  and  jirove  the  truth  of  the  matter  alleged  to  be 
libelous.  But  our  friends  propose  to  inaugurate  a  new 
era  in  the  law  of  hbel.  The  Jury  are  no  longer  to  read 
the  pajier  upon  which  they  are  to  pass.  They  are  to 
find  damages  for  an  accusation,  though  they  cannot 
find  the  accusation.  On  a  question  of  doubtful  intent 
the  Oourt  is  to  find  the  fact,  and  the  Jury  to  vi.-it 
upon  the  defendant  the  penalties  of  a  wrong" of  which 
they  believe  him  to  be  innocent.  We  were  challenged 
by  the  pl.iiutift' to  prove  the  truth  of  the  publication 
on  which  he  counts.  When  we  accept  the  challenge, 
and  oiier  to  prove  its  truth,  be  tells  us,  in  substance, 
tliat  we  cannot  be  permitted  to  prove  it,  that  he  will 
elect  what  evidence  we  may,  and  what  we  may  not 
ofier,  and  that  we  may  prove  the  truth  of  bis  infer- 
ences, but  not  of  our  alleg'Jtions.  You  will  readily 
perceive  that,  when  propositions  like  these  are  enter- 
tained, discussion  becomes  embarrassing,  as  we  are 
bound  to  abide  by  such  rulings  as  have  been  made  by 
the  Court,  and  may  yet  be  made  in  the  course  of  the 
trial.  Within  the  narrow  limits  assigned  I  shall  pre- 
sent the  cjise  as  well  as  I  can  upon  the  topics  to  which 
the  discussion  is  cut  down  by  the  Court. 

You  will  not  fail  to  appreciate  the  public  aspect  of 
the  grave  questions  involved  in  the  issue.  The  fearless 
comments  of  a  free  press  on  the  public  acts  of  those 
you  entrust  with  power,  are  your  only  protection 
against  profligate  legislation  and  official  coi-runtiou  and 
venality.  Even  with  such  exposures  of  malfeasance 
in  office  and  partisan  intrigue  as  you  have  hitherto  had, 
and  with  the  princely  revenues  of  New-York  from  its 
magnificent  public  works,  your  industry  is  taxed  four 
millions  annually  for  Sta'te  purposes  alone.  Every 
farm  from  Lake  Ontario  to  the  sea  is  under  mortgage 
to-day  to  the  tax-gatherer,  not  for  the  legitimate  sup- 
port of  Government,  but  to  supply  the  ever-recurring 
deficiencies  of  a  treasury  drained  hy  corrupt  legislation. 
You  are  taxed  because  the  capitolof  a  free  State  is  pol- 
luted by  jobbers  and  money  chancers.  Laws  are  en- 
acted by  the  mercenaries  o"f  the  third  estate.  Where 
we  most  need  integrity,  roguery  thrives  and  honest 
men  are  in  disrepute.  Whoever  is  guilty,  who- 
ever innocent,  ttie  fact  exists  and  is  known 
of  all  men.  It  is  matter  of  public  history, 
and  as  familiar  to  every  citizen  as  the  fact 
that  the  cohorts  of  rebellion  are  now  advancing  in 
arms  to  subvert  the  Kepublic.  Do  I  mistake  the  sen- 
timent of  this  commuuiiy  when  I  say  that  deeply  as 
we  abhor  the  brazen  front  of  treason  which  boldly  en- 
counters the  perils  of  crime  and  war,  still  more  do  we 
detest  and  abhor  the  treachery,  the  thievery  and  the 
jteculation  of  those  among  otuselves,  who  betray  pub- 
lic trusts,  who   ritie   and   stab   the   people',  and 


35 


in  the  house  of  the  people.  However  it 
may  be  with  individuals,  we  know  the  laxi- 
ty of  public  morals  prevailing  among  many  of 
those  who  have  crept  into  high  places.  It  has  been 
found  that  theie  are  gold  mines  nearer  than  California, 
accessible  to  plastic  consciences.  M(!n  have  learned 
to  buy  their  offices  and  sell  their  votes,  to  barter  honor 
for  emolument  and  conscience  for  coiu.  Human  souls 
are  bought  and  sold  at  the  public  shambles.  In  the 
present  case  we  are  not  permitted  to  inquire  who 
these  men  are.  But  we  may  well  as^,  wneft  we  are 
called  on  to  silence  the  sentinels  who  should  warn  us 
against  corruption,  what  will  be  our  condition  when 
you  have  muzzled  those  whose  duty  it  is  to  guard  us, 
when  A'ou  have  knifed  the  watchdogs  who  protect  us 
while  "we  sleep  ?  You  are  to  viudie-ate  all  rights  and 
enforce  all  laws;  but  in  doing  so,  and  in  arriving  at  a 
judgment  in  each  particular  case,  you  will  not  lose 
sight  of  what  is  due  to  the  community  at  large,  or  dis- 
card from  view  the  circumstances  and  surroundings 
which  reflect  light  on  the  acts  and  motives  of  those 
who  are  arraigned  before  you  as  wrongdoers.  We 
are  to  abide  by  the  decisions  of  the  courts,  but  we 
especially  rejoice  when  they  gladden  good  men — as 
the  exclusion  of  our  evidence  gladdened  the  worthy 
gentlemen  whom  we  brought  hej  e  to  reveal  the  doings 
and  bargainings  of  the  Albany  lobby.  How  speedily 
the  cloud  rolled  away  which  seemed  before  to  darken 
the  court -room. 

It  is  because  you  are  h^-e  in  the  discharge  of  a  high 
public  duty  that  I  adverl  to  these  public  considera- 
tions.  The  learned  counsel  seem  to  think  that  those 
only  who  hold  office  owe  duties  to  the  State,  and  that 
it  is  the  duty  of  Horace  Greeley  and  all  else  to  be 
silent  when  officials  speak.   I  hold  that  the  highest 
and  most  important  duty  under  the  State  Government 
is  that  devolved  on  the  juror  when  he  sits  in  judg-  | 
ment  on  the  rights  of  others  in  a  court  of  justice.  { 
Trial  by  jury  lies  at  the  basis  of  our  whole  system  of  \ 
law,  and  it  is  the  most  essential  and  the  most  honora-  \ 
ble  trust  imposed  on  the  citizen  of  a  free  republic.  I 
Legislators  may  make  laws  and  unmake  them— judges  ! 
may  pronounce  decisions  and  reverse  them — but  we  all  j 
feel  and  know  that  high  above  these  in  practical  im- 
portance and  efficient  protection  rises  the  institution  of 
trial  by  j  ury — the  time-honored  safeguard  of  civil  rights  ' 
and  civil  liberty.    This  institution  alone  has  niade 
England  a  free  nation  against  all  the  power  of  the 
throne.    British  jurors  in  the  State  Trials  Infused  new 
life  and  liberty  into  the  Constitution  of  their  country. 
But  here  there  is  no  such  antagonism.    The  right  of 
trial  by  jury  is  cherished  by  our  judges  and  our  rulers 
no  less  than  by  ourselves.     My  friends  mistake,  I 
think,  when  they  suppose  the  Coui-t  will  withhold 
from   you   the   first  Question  which  arises  in  this 
case — whether     in     the    article    complained  of 
Horace    Greeley    charged    De    Witt   C.  Little- 
john    with    personal   corruption.      I    think  they 
err  in  supposing  that  when  that  question  is  committed 
to  you,  twelve  men  of  the  County  of  Oswego  will  im- 
pute to  the  defendant  a  charge  not  made  in  the  publi- 
cation, or  condemn  him  for  the  bold  and  manly  utter 
anee  of  his  opinions  of  the  corrupt  legislation  of  1S60, 
and  of  those  who  were  its  public  advocates  on  the 
floor  of  the  New-York  Assem-  ly.     The  frank  utter 
ance  of  his  honest  convictions  was  what  was  demanded 
of  Mr.  Greeley  by  the  250,000  citizens  who,  as  the  plain-  ■ 
tiff'  has  proved,  are  subscribers  for  The  N.  Y.  Trie 
vsE.    It  was  demanded  by  a  million  of  men,  who,  as 
the  counsel  tell  you,  are  the  habitual  readers  of  that  I 
journal.    The  result  of  this  trial  will  be  regarded  with  | 
the  deepest  interest  not  only  by  them,  but  by  other 
millions  whose  attention  will  be  attracted  by  an  i>eue  j 
on  that  open  and  bold  corruption  which  has  brought 
dishouor  upon  our  State,  and  has  become  memoratiie  ! 
in  our  national  history.    L  ke  the  celebrated  Croswell 
case,  illustrated  by  the  genius  of  Hamilton,  the  no-  ; 
blest  defender  of  a  free  press,  it  involves  principles 


and  lights  rising  in  magnitude  far  above  the  issues  of 
the  hour;  and  it  involves  also  the  standard  of  integrity 
demanded  by  an  American  Jury  of  the  public  officer 
who  claims  at  their  hands  the  vindication  of  his  char- 
ac'^^er  by  their  indorsement  of  his  public  acts. 

You  are  to  determine  w^hether  an  American  journal, 
in  commenting  upon  laws  vetoed  by  the  chief  magis- 
trate, condemned  by  the  public  judgment,  conceded  by 
men  of  all  parties,  creeas  and  factions,  to  bear  the 
brand  of  corruption  upon  their  face,  may  unite  its  voice 
in  a  protett  against  corrupt  legi^-lation,  and  may,  in  the 
exercise  of  a  fair  and  free  censorship  of  the  acts  of 
public  men,  proclaim  its  opposition  to  all  who  advo- 
cated those  laws.  You  are  to  determine  whether  the 
meaning  of  the  English  language  is  the  same  when  you 
read  it  at  your  own  firesides,  and  when  counsel  read  it 
to  you  in  the  jury  box.  You  are  to  determine  whether 
this  article  was  intended  by  the  publisher,  and  under- 
stood by  the  reader,  as  an  imputation  that  Mr.  Little- 
john  was  bribed, — or  as  an  appropriate  comment  on  his 
public  acts  deeply  affecting  the  interest  and  honor  of 
the  State  he  was  bound  to  serve. 

I  admit  that  the  obligations  of  public  duty  are  too 
commorily  ignored,  and  it  is  only  on  rare  occasions 
that  we  "are  brought  to  feel  them  in  all  their  force. 
Tbey  should  never  be  forgotten  by  those  occupying 
relaiions  of  trust  and  confidence— lesst  of  all  by 
those  claiming  high  and  honored  official  positions. 
Subordinate  ouly  to  the  duty  we  owe  the  Creator, 
from  whom  we  receive  oar  Vireath  and  daily  bread,  ia 
the  obligation  to  the  State  and  country,  under  which 
property,  Jiberty,  and  life  are  made  secure,  and  in 
whose  prosperity  is  interwoven  that  of  each  citizen, 
and  of  all  who  "are  to  succeed  him  in  the  enjoyment; 
of  the  blessings  of  civil  liberty.  All  sucli  ideas  would 
provoke  only  a  smile  from  the  trained  politicians  of  the 
New-York  lobby;  but  recent  events  have  admonished 
even  them  that  love  of  country,  though  it  may  some- 
times sleep,  is  not  dead  in  the' hearts  of  the  free  men 
of  the  North.  It  i-?  a  noble  attribute  of  our  nature, 
sometimes  wanting  in  politicians,  but  never  wanting 
in  the  great  body  of  a  people.  It  marks  even  the 
wandering  Oriental  tribes.  It  comes  to  us  with  the 
sanction  of  religion,  with  the  touching  memories  of  the 
Hebrew  maidens  mourning  in  exile  lor  their  country, 
and  the  still  more  touching  memories  of  the  Kedeem'er 
of  Mankind,  who  permitted  his  dearest  human  aftec- 
tions  to  center  in  the  land  consecrated  by  his  nativity 
and  his  ascension. 

Gentlemen,  considerations  like  these  either  weaken 
or  strengthen  their  hold  upon  the  human  heart,  when 
men  are  brought  into  positions  of  extended  influence. 
Self-love  and  selfish  aspirations  deepen  in  intensity  by 
indulgence.  Earnest  and  generous  devotion  to  nobler 
and  higher  aims,  the  desire  to  advance  the  interests 
and  promote  the  happiness  of  kindred  and  friends, 
classes  and  races,  country  and  humanitv — these,  too, 
grow  with  our  growth  and  strengtlien  with  our 
strength.  While  the  first  tend  to  ciaft  and  falsehood — 
the  last  lead  to  love  of  truth  and  loyalty  to  right. 
Many  of  you  ditfer  widely  in  your  opinionsfrom  Horace 
Greeley;*  but  whether  you 'judge  him  by  the  develop- 
ments of  this  trial  or  those  of  his  past  life,  I  need  not 
ask  to  which  of  these  classes,  in  your  judgment, 
he  belongs.  He  was  called  upon  ut  the  threshold  of 
an  eventful  life,  which  will  be  full  of  interest  to  after 
times,  to  make  liis  election.  He  had  occasion  to  con- 
sider early  grave  questions  of  right  and  duty,  which 
to  some  of  us  even  now  are  almost  new.  By  the  de- 
cision then  made,  we  are  all  Lis  witnesses  that  he  has 
not  failed  to  abide.  Thirty  vears  ago  he  went,  with  the 
training  in  integrity  received  by  the  sons  of  the 
farmers  of  New-England,  to  seek  a"home  in  the  metro- 
politan city,  Irom  which  he  was  destined  to  exercise 
an  influence  that  will  leave  its  impress  on  the  age. 
He  entered  that  city  poor  and  penniless — but  rich — 
jich  ill  that  love  of  truth  which  has  illustrated  all  his 
life,  and  of  which  the  publication  now  in  (question  is 


flii  eviilence— rich  in  thoFc  hk'h  attiibutes  of  man-  his  oflirinl  position,  and  my  learned  fiierds  olaim  that 
\\oo^^,  iNiiiraLre,  love  of  country,  htve  of  humanity,  love  his  persouHl  reputation  is  unstained.  What  then  must 
of  liyht;  and  Ironi  that  liay  to  this,  thonuh  he  mav  of-  he  the  v;»liie  of  the  politiral  charucter  of  iMr.  Little- 
ten  have  be»-n  deceived  in*  men,  otten  niit«Ieil  in  Judg-  .jolin,  wlien  i;  hoius  a  depreciation  of  $.2.'),()U()  ^itlioiit 
niont,  has  he  ever  t';iili  d  to  he  true  to  his  convietiDns  ?  '  preventing  h's  reelection  to  ollice,  within  nx  weekfl 
Has  lie  ever  faltered  in  what  he  believed  to  be  public  ;  after  the  put)licalion  of  the  alleged  libel  /  His  counsel 
duty?  Has  lie  ever  been  leiLMied  wii  h  corruption,  or  j  cliiiin  that  he  was  vindicated  iu  Ids  county  hy  rc- 
faise  to  the  known  interest  of  his  country  ?  election  to  the  Asficmbly,  in  the  State  by  re-electi<m  to 

Do  you  helieve  this  was  the  prevalent  srint  of  the  |  the  Sneakers  ip,  and  iil  tlie  Nation  i)y  ajipoiutnient  to 
men  who  voted  for  the  Gridircii  Kuilroaa  acts,  and  one  of  the  highest  and  most  lucrative  pl  icea  iu  the 
the  M  ushington  Market  bill,  w  hich  were  read  in  vour  gilt  of  flie  Federal  Aduduistration.  Aly  eloquent 
hearing  yesterday  /  'I  hese  are  public  lawn,  and  1  use  associate  suggests,  that  after  all  he  may  be  right 
them  as  part  of  inv  argument.  Is  it  not  well  that  there  in  his  appreciation  of  the  pecuniary  value  of  political 
is  at  lea->t  one  mnn — I  trust  tliere  ate  many  more — toex  '  charac  ter  at  the  Capitol,  but  his  counsel  will  hardly 
pose  tlie  character  of  laws  like  this — to  express  bis  con-  ;  claim  it.  Neither  tUey  nor  I  have  any  right  to  assume 
victions  and  your  own — to  deduce  from  them  the  >&i\ie  it,  and  if  that  sum  has  been  lost  by  any  member  of  the 
conclusions  you  deduce,  and  to  unite  witli  you  iu  man-  '  Assembly  of  1<SG(I — relv  on  it,  gentlemen,  it  has  been 
ly  condemnation  of  the  actors  as  well  as  the  acts  ?  j  saved  to  the  State  of  Kew-York.  If  Mr.  Greeley  has 
"  It  se'^ms  to  be  conceived  by  the  plaintifi'  that  the  interfered  with  the  prosperity  of  the  loljby,  and  dimin- 
iournnlist  who  acts  iu  the  interest  of  the  public  is  not  islied  the  pecuniary  j)rotitB  "of  legislation,  our  prayer 
at  lil)erty  to  discuss  the  claims  of  political  candidate?,  \  should  be  that  the  reform  may  not  cea^e  until  every 
even  on  the  ground  of  their  previous  official  acts,  with-  !  particirant  in  those  proiits  shall  have  gone  out  from 
out  tirst  holding  a  court  of  imjuiry  to  ascertain  ;  public  life  as  naked  as  when  he  was  born.  [Voice  in 
■whether  those  acts  do  not  admit  of  explanation.  ,  the  crowd — Amen.] 

Gentlemaii,  in  mattersof  general  concern,  the  necessity  I  do  not  believe  that  Mr.  Littlejohn's  counsel  will 
of  sucli  an  inqui-ition  would  preclude  all  discussion,  claim  that  his  political  character,  or,  if  they  prefer  the 
The  impending  dai^ger  nnist  be  met  with  prompt  and  phrase,  his  personal  character  in  an  official  capacity, 
sudden  warning.  You  see  the  tiames  bursting  at  mid-  has  been  dei>reciated  iu  value  $25,000  by  the  charge  "of 
night  from  a  dwelling  in  which  a  cripple  and  a  chiM  being  a  prominent  advocate  of  the  measures  which  Mr. 
are  sleejdng.  AVill  you  tmuse  to  inquire  whether  it  is  Greeley  and  this  entire  community  believe  to  have 
not  an  optical  illusion  before  you  give  the  alarm?  been  corrupt.  They  will  claim  a  verdict  of  six  cents, 
You  are  in  Charleston,  and  leani  fiom  a  slave,  whose  and  can  reasonably  claim  no  more,  for  they  make  it  a 
lips  are  not  adadtted  to  the  cross,  and  who  must  stand  part  of  their  case  that  he  has  been  vindicated  from  the 
mute  iu  a  court  of  justice,  that  incendiaries  are  abroad,  charge,  as  well  at  home  as  abroad.  But  w^hy  seek  a 
and  in  an  hour  the  city  will  be  w'ranped  in  lire.  \Vill  six  cent  verdict  ?  To  fasten  upon  Mr.  Greeley  the 
you  waif  for  better  evidence  until  master  and  slaves  stigma  of  a  libeler,  and  to  make  a  precedent  for  future 
are  involved  in  a  common  conflagration  ?  Y'ou  learn  verdicts  against  journalists  who  venture  to  denounce 
that  the  pub'ic  enemy  is  advancing  upon  the  gates  of  the  corrupt  legislation.  It  depends  on  you  what  the  pre- 
capital.    Will  you  j^ause  before  you  rouse  the  sleeping  cedent  shall  be. 

eentinels?  Y'ou  find  men  in  public  confidence  bartering  Should  this  action  have  been  pushed  to  trial?  My 
away  the  honor  and  interests  of  the  State.  WiW  you  learned  friends  think  it  should.  1  am  not  prepared  to 
permit  the  traffic  to  go  on,  while  you  wait  for  coufed-  concur  with  them.  Peihans  I  shou'd,  if  Mr.  Littlejohn 
erates  to  turn  St Hte  s  evidence  against  each  other.  A  had  availed  himself  of  tne  opportunity  to  take  the 
candidate  is  on  the  eve  of  election  whom  you  believe  stand  and  vindicate  his  character.  That  opportunity 
to  be  an  unsafe  custodian  of  a  public  trust."  Will  you  we  tendered  him  by  examiniuij  Mr.  Greeley.  He 
permit  hiui  to  be  elected  first,  and  then  satisfy  j"our  j  swore  that  Le  believed  the  matter  alleged  in  the  publi- 
scruples  by  deploiing  the  wrong  you  miijht  have  cation  to  be  true.  It  was  the  right  of  Mr.  Littlejohn 
averted?  On  questio'ns  involving  th"e  general  welfare  to  prove  by  his  own  oath  that  it  was  not  true.  He 
the  press  owes  us  a  present,  immediate  duty,  and  it  is  had  the  election  to  speak  or  be  silent,  and  he  elected 
false  to  its  trust  when  the  duty  is  postponed,  whether  silence.  He  invited  investigation,  and  when  we 
from  fear,  favor,  or  afi'ection.  Whoever  seeks  places  tendered  tlie  proof,  he  insisted  on  its  exclusion.  He 
of  public  trust  challenges  scrutiny  of  his  public  acts,  chose  not  to  avail  himself  of  a  noble  opportunity  to 
The  judges  upon  the  bench,  my  eloquent  friends  on  vindicate  his  honor,  not  by  excluding  our  proof,  but 
the  other  aide  who  have  been  "honored  with  high  offi-  offering  his  own.  Horace  Greeley  invited  crose-ex- 
ces,  the  iucuoibents  of  the  highest  places  iu  the"  State  aminationon  oath — the  best  test  of  truth  known  among 
and  the  nation,  shrink  from  no  such  scrutiny,  and  are  ,  men.  De  Witt  C.  Littlejohn,  though  he  claimed  hi* 
content  to  be  judged  by  their  acts.  When  a  candidate  '  honor  to  have  been  impugned,  invites  no  such  test.  It 
presents  himself  tor  office  he  brings  his  public  charac-  was  his  right  to  be  sworn  or  liot,  at  his  })leasure.  He. 
ter  into  the  canvass,  and  cannot  complain  of  open  and  could  rely  for  the  vindication  of  his  character  either 
frank  discussion  of  his  antecedent  political  acts,  on  an  ai  lificial  rule  of  presumption,  or  on  his  own  tee- 
When  the  press  falters  in  the  discharge  of  this  duty,  timony  in  open  court.  If  that  testimony  had  been  given, 
it  18  because  it  is  faithless,  stifled,  or  corrupt.  it  would  h  ive  been  under  the  eyes  of  this  thronged 

It  is  alleged  that  by  such  discussion  tlie  political  assemblage,  of  this  honored  Court,  of  his  own  coun- 
character  of  Mr.  Littlejohn  has  been  damnified.  He  sel,  of  the  witnesses  we  summoned  to  give  the  eyi- 
claims  that  Mr.  Greeley  owes  hioj  $"Jo,()00,  wJiich  has  dence  he  excluded,  and  of  the  chieftains  of  the  third 
been  lost  by  the  plaintitl' and  taken  by  the  defendant,  estate.  The  ordeal  of  an  oath,  in  open  Court  and  in 
not  in  cash  but  in  value.  Nor  is  tllis  all.  It  seems  view  of  th»=8e  witnesses,  presented  no  attractions  to 
that  iu  another  suit  now  pending  other  $2'), 000  is  Speaker  Littlejohn,  no  terrors  for  Horace  Greeley, 
claimed  for  further  loss  of  churacter.  Nor  is  this  all.  \  If  he  had  accej'ted  this  ordeal,  my  friends  could  have 
for  it  is  intimated  that  two  other  libels  are  waiting  insisted  with  more  plausibility  that  this  suit  is  prose- 
their  tum  for  prosecution,  when  your  verdict  in  this  cuted,  not  for  money,  but  for  the  vindication  of  hia 
case  shall  have  commended  the  prudence  of  the  experi-  !  political  character.  When  a  plaintiff  comes  into 
ment.  _  Court  in  an  action  for  a  political  libel,  and  begins  his 

Is  it  true  then,  gentlemen,  that  this  little  article  has  I  case  by  proving  that  he  has  not  been  damaged 
danmified  the  polit  cal  character  of  Sfieaker  Littlejohn  ]  even  in  his  political  character,  and  follows 
$2.3,000.  He  swears  it  has,  and  demands  his  money.  :  it  up  by  proof  that  before  the  suit  was  commenced  he 
Has  he  been  traduced  in  his  private  character?  No;  1  received  a  frank  and  manly  letter  disclaiming  any  in- 
the  complaint  characterizes  the  charge  as  relating  to  i  tentionto  impute  to  him  personal  corruption — when  he 


37  * 


excludes  proof  of  the  trutli  of  the  matters  coiitahied  in  i  these  cases  are  clearly  defined.  Neither  will  encroach 
the  alleged  libel— when  be  iierniits  the  defendant  to  upon  the  prerogative  of  tne  other, 
swear  to  his  full  belief  of  their  truth— when  he,  know-  I  submit  that  ihe  publication  is  not  a  libel— that  it 
ing  whether  they  are  in  fact  true,  chooses  to  be  silent,  does  not  impute  corruption  to  Mr.  Littlejohn.  Let  me 
and  when  under  these  circumstances  he  deujands  not  be  misunderstood.  Mr.  Greeley  believed  the  plaia- 
money  of  the  defendant,  what  do  you  believe  as  jurors?  tiff  to  be  gui'ty  of  corruption.  We  know  that,  not 
Does  he  want  character  or  does"  he  want  money  ?  I  '  from  this  article,  for  the  article  forbears  to  speak  upon 
do  not  deny  that  Mr.  Littlejohn  may  have  sustained  tl)  at  subject — but  from  the  sworn  answer,  and  Mr, 
damage  to 'the  amountof  six  cents — nay,  of  twenty-five  ,  Greeley  s  oath  uj)on  the  witness-stand.  The  complaint 
cents  or  §25,00U — but  believe  me,and  I  think  you  do  imputeci  to  the  defendant  the  charge  that  Littlejohn  was 
■  believe  me  in  your  inmost  hearts — it  was  not  from  corrupt.  This  called  for  an  answer  upon  that  point. 
Horace  Greeley  *s  comments,  but  the  votes  on  which  He  had  not  before  expressed  his  opiiiiou  on  that  })oiat, 
he  commeuted.  There  they  stand,  and  there  they  will  but  he  had  as  little  hesitation  in  expressing  it  when  the 
remain  forever.  Your  statute-book  is  polluted  by  un-  occasion  demanded,  as  in  offering  to  sustidn  it  by  evi- 
dean  laws — enduring  memorials  of  the  infamy  dence,  and  verifyuig  his  belief  on  the  trial  by  his  oath, 
of  New- York  legislation  in  the  year  preced-  But  the  inf|uiry  is  as  to  the  iutent,  not  of  the  answer, 
/  iug  the  rebellion.  Those  raiiroad  '  acts  made  but  of  the  origi'ual  article.  It  is  to  be  understood  by  us 
irrepealable  by  leyislative  compact  !  Those  grants  of  as  it  was  then  understood  by  the  public  in  the  light 
more  than  baronial  franchises  in  perpetual  mouofiolv,  of  the  surrounding  facts.  It  is  matter  of  public  history 
with  no  duties  imposed,  no  obligations  assumed  !  that  the  Legislature  of  186U  went  Lome  justly  or  un- 
When  the  years  roll  round,  and  the  generations  melt  justly  laden  with  a  heavy  burden  of  infamy.  It,  is 
away  that  intervene  between  u&  and  the  twendeth  matter  also  of  public  history  that  only  .s7'.r  of  the  mem- 
century,  and  the  demand  of  millions  shall  still  be  made  bers  of  this  Assembly  who  supported  these  corrupt 
for  railroads  on  the  piincipal  avenues  of  New-York,  measure-,  whether  from  puie  or  impure  motives,  were 
the  answer  will  still  be:  "The  right  to  build  those  permitted  fi  gain  to  set  foot  in  the  Capitol.  Now, 
roads  was  sold — nay,  not  sold  but  given — by  the  Leg-  Horace  Greeley  is  called  upon  for  his  opinion  as  to  the 
islature  of  18G0,  to  parties  known  and  unknown,  ;or  reelection  of  two  of  the^  parties  who  voted  lor  those 
the  benefit  of  political  gamblers,  and  no  road  can  be  measures — both  his  political  associates.  It  was  his 
builo  until  you  buy  out  the  last  assign  of  the  last  right — it  was  his  duty — to  answer  according  to  bis 
]  descendant  of  the  last  gambler,  and  the  ail  lonaire  convictions;  and  what  is  his  answer  ?  That  legislation 
proprietors  of  rival  roads,  who  purchased  the  rights  of  was  corrupt;  and  in  that  legisldtion  both  these 
straggliT'g  grantees  to  protect  in  perpetuity  their  own  parties  were  prominent.  What  is  the  charge  ? 
monopolies  agriinst  the  demands  of  industry  and  com-  First :  the  general  fact — not  that  the  legislators — 
merce.  And  so  on  from  generation  to  generation  so  but  that  the  ietfislation  was  corrupt.  Second  : 
long  as  any  of  these  gran'ees,  their  descendants,  or  that,  in  this  legislation,  these  two  members  were 
assigns  crnx  connect  themselves  with  these  infamous  prominent.  Was  this  article  intended  to  single  out  the 
laws  through  the  title  made  for  them  by  the  votes  of  guilty  agents  who  procured  the  corrupt  legislation  ? 
Speaker  Littlejohn  and  his  confreres  in  the  Legis  ature  No;  it  was  to  denounce  corrupt  laws,  and  those  who 
of  IbGO."  j  were  their  prominent  advocates.    Does  he  claim  to 

W^e  are  relieved,  gentlemen,  by  an  interlocutory  de-  have  peculiar  knowledge,  not  within  the  view  of  the 
cision  of  the  Court  from  considering  one  question  of  public?  No;  he  is  speaking  of  public  acts  and  public 
law  we  had  intended  to  discuss — whether  the  publica-  men.  He  unites  his  voice  to  that  of  the  GoveriiOr  who 
tion  in  question  aJ/ndttd  the  construction  placed  uporr  vetoed  the  corrupt  bills;  to  the  voice  of  the  people 
it  by  the  learned  Judge  for  the  purpose  of  ruling  upon  who  sustained  the  Governor,  in  the  Fall  of  1860,  by 
the  evidence.  But,  though  then  presented  only  inci-  a  majority  of  over  60,000  votes — and  with  the  active 
dentally,  we  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  trespass  upon  his  interest  of  the  Albany  lobby  enlisted  for  bis  defeat, 
indulgence  by  opening  the  question  for  the  purpose  of  Mr.  Greeley  believed  with  you,  and  you,  with  each 
discussion  here.  A  publication  admitting  of  two  con-  man  on  this  Jury.  And  what  he  believed,  he  spoke, 
structions,  one  innocent  and  one  libelous,  is  deemed  He  was  not  called  upon  for  a  list  of  parties 
libelous  for  all  interlocutory  purposes,  until  the  trite  to  le  proceeded  against  before  the  Grand 
construction  is  submitted  to  tbe  Jury,  to  be  determined  Jury  of  Al  any.  He  was  called  upon 
by  them  as  a  question  of  fact.  Iq  other  words,  if  the  to  know  whether,  now  that  an  oppportunity  was  pre- 
language  admits  of  a  construction  which  would  render  sented,  he  was  ready"  to  rebuke  an  advocate  of  these 
it  libelous,  it  is  the  right  of  the  plaintiff  to  have  the  measures,  in  the  person  of  a  trusted  Republican  le-.der 
language  construed  by  the  Court  in  the  offensive  sense,  and  personal  friend.  If  Horace  Greeley  had  loved 
to  enable  him  to  take  the  vei  diet  of  the  Jury  on  the  ofiice  as  much  as  he  loved  truth,  he  would  have  been 
question  whether  it  was  so  intended  or  understood.  If  silent.  If  he  bad  political  aspirations  of  the  lower  or- 
the  words  admit  only  of  one  obvious  meaning,  and  that  der,  which  prefer  place  and  pay  to  honor  and  integrity, 
plainly  libelous,  the  question  of  construction  in  a  he  would  have  been  a  mad  man  to  make  this  publica- 
civil  action  belongs  exclusively  to  the  Court,  tion,  whether  tiue  or  false.  But  there  was  a  monitor 
and  it  is  deemed  for  all  purposes  libelous  within  which  did  not  permit  him  to  falter  in  the  dis- 
in   law,   as  well   by   the   Court   as   the    Jury,   charge  of  a  duty  his  own  conscience  enjoined.    He  felt 

In  this  case,  under  the  ruling  of  the  Court,  I  assume  j  that,  let  the  consequences  be  what  they  might,  though 
that  the  publication  is  suscejitible  of  a  construction  [  a  majority  of  the  Legislature  were  his  trusted 
which  would  render  it  libelous  if  so  intended  and  |  political  friends,  though  one  of  them  was  a  man  of 
understood.  It  is  obvious,  upon  the  face  of  the  pub-  marked  ability,  of  commandiLg  influence,  trusted 
lication,  and  will  be  conceded  by  my  learned  friends,  '  at  home,  trusted  by  the  Legislature,  elevated 
as  by  every  one  who  reads  ir,  that  it  admits  a  con-  ;  to  a  high  public  position — he  was  bound  to  speak  what 
struction  which  renders  it  innocent.  We  think  it  :  the  public  welfare  demanded.  He  spoke  that,  and 
demands  that  construction,  but  defer,  of  course,  to  the  spoke  no  more.  Now,  gentlemen,  is  there  one  word 
ruling  of  the  Court,  and  are  content  to  argue  the  ques-  in  this  article  which  imputes  t )  Mr.  Littlejohn  the  sale 
tion  on  the  assumption  that  it  admits  of  either  con-  j  of  his  vote  for  a  bribe?  You  are  told  it  is  susceptible 
struction.  It  will  be  gratify  in  g_  to  the  Court  to  in- ;  of  that  construction.  But  the  questicm  is,  whetnerit 
struct  you,  that  under  these  circumstances  the  law  !  does  not  admit  and  demand  a  very  different  construc- 
confides  that  quettion  to  you.  It  is  a  pure  question  of  tion,  in  harmony  with  the  intent  of  the  writer  and  the 
fact,  and  it  is  for  you  to  determine  in  whicii  of  these  understanding  of  the  reader.  Honor  to  the  good,  old, 
two  senses  the  publication  was  intended  and  under-  right  tridl  by  Jury.  I  believe  it  was  Lord  Bacon  who 
stood.   The  prerogatives  of  the  Court  and  the  Jury  in   said  that  the  wisdom  of  the  common  mind  of  the  masa 


of  men  infinitely  siirjMissep  tliiit  of  the  wiseet  man.  Trial 
by  Jury,  in  a  rase  like  this,  is  a  right  of  inestinuible 
value. '  l>e  Witt  C.  Littlejohn  unes  for  dainagen  which 
he  claims  to  havesuetained  from  words  which  ljuve  gone 
forth  to  the  people,  and  it  is  for  the  people,  as  repre- 
sented in  the  Jury  liox,  to  sav  liow  tiiebo  word^<  weie 
intended,  and  how  they  are  tairly  to  be  nn(ier^tood. 
Yon  hnug  to  be.ir  the  jndgn.ent  "of  the  popnlar  niirid, 
uuenibarrat'sed  by  those  technical  rnles  and  artilicial 
retinements  which,  while  they  sharj^en  the  faculty  of 
l•ea^oning  in  debate,  often  dim  the  moral  vi.-ion  and 
cloud  the  understanding  of  those  who  study  books 
more  than  ihey  stmlv  men.  It  is  because  the  popular 
mind  is  best  a'diipted  to  the  construction  of  pojmlar 
language,  that  the  law  commits  (juebtions  like  these 
to  the  conscience  and  intelligence  of  the  Jury,  holiiiug 
that,  !'or  this  ]uirj)o.-e,  the  practical  eeui-e  of  twelve 
men  will  furnish  a  safei-  criterion  than  mere  judicial  or 
jtroferriouHl  opinion.  You  have  he:ird  this  article 
read.  What  is  its  plain  and  obvious  intent? 
Do  you  understand  it  as  a  cliarge  that 
the  plainiilf  received  a  bribe?  These  words 
are  to  be  underetotd  by  you  now,  and  here,  as 
you  understood  them  when  reading  ti.e  article  by  your 
own  tiiecide,  on  the  evening  of  its  publicuiion.  Even 
without  the  aid  of  other  evMence,  you  have  no  diffi- 
culty in  reaching  the  clear  conclusion  that  it  was  not 
intended  to  cluuye  the  plaintiff  with  selling  his  vote, 
but  with  advocating  corrupt  legislation.  But,  gentle- 
men, however  it  may  be  with  the  article  upon  its  face, 
the  I'laiuiiif  hai  clear,  controlling,  and  irreeiptible  evi- 
dence, that  the  intent  of  Mr.  Greeley  was  not  to 
charge  him  with  personal  corruption.  ]\Ir.  Littlejohn 
had  a  liglit,  if  he  c!  ot^e,  to  stand  upon  the  article.  He 
had  the  ligbt,  if  he  pleased,  to  resort  to  other  evidence 
to  reiitct  light  on  the  import  of  the  lane  uvige,  juid  the 
intent  and  purpose  of  the  writer.  He  cho^e  not  to 
trust  Lis  case  upon  the  lan^mtge  of  the  article,  but 
tj  resort  to  extrintie  eviden  e.  Tuat  evidence 
U  now  the  property  of  both.  It  belongs  to  the  case. 
In  legal  cflect,  he  stipulated  when  he  introduced  it, 
that  it  should  be  read  tide  by  side  with  the  libel,  that 
you  might  thus  a?cerTaiu  the* secret  heurt  and  intent  of 
the  deten.'ant  in  making  tlie  publication  comj  lained  of. 
The  I'liiintitl' introduced  for  this  purpose  31r.  Greeley  s 
letter  of  >>ov.  26,  1)^60,  and  his  article  of  The  Ti{iblnk 
of  11th  Septeniber — one  of  them  two  months  after,  and 
one  two  weeks  before  the  publicaticn  iu  question. 
Tou  remember  the  alleged  biibe  refVrs  to  the  opiuions 
previously  expressed  iu  Thk  TiuiawE.  The  article  of 
Ilth  Septemi  er  is  the  only  one  thepla  nliff  ventures  to 
produce  and  submit  to  your  scrutiny.  Now,  gentle- 
men, as  Horace  Greeley  s'peaks  in  tlie  article  of  11th 
September,  he  speaks  in  the  alleged  libel.  The  plain- 
tiff makes  Mr.  Greeley  his  witness,  and  the  statements 
in  that  artic.e  become' evidence  iu  the  cau?e,  to  which, 
if  you  believe  tbem,  you  may  give  effect  by  your  ver- 
dict. The  party  who  introduces  the  statement  of  bis 
adversary  does  so  at  the  peril  of  its  bein^  fully  believed. 
"We  bo'h  agree  that  this  article  and  this  letter  are  fair 
and  reliable  evidence  of  the  ititent  and  puii)0.-e  of  Mr. 
Greeley  in  publisliingthe  article  alleged  to  be  libelous. 
Let  us'then  consider  thtir  efiect.  On  the  day  the  arti- 
cle compluiued  of  was  published,  as  the  proof  discloses, 
the  relations  of  Mr.  Greeley  with  Mr.  Littlejohn  were 
precisely  the  same  that  they  were  at  the  time  of  the 
publication  of  the  article  of  11th  September.  On  the 
cue  day  as  on  the  other,  they  looked  back  on  an  uninter- 
rupted iiersoualand  political  friendshij)  of  twenty  years' 
duration.  On  tne  one  day  as  on  the  other,  each  re- 
membeied  with  jdej^sure  the  devotion  of  the  other  to 
the  political  piinciples  of  whicn  both  were  advocates. 
On  one  day  as  on  the  other,  each  recurred,  but  with 
very  ditfeient  views,  to  the  Lej^i?lature  of  lf:i6i'.  Mr. 
Greeley  looked  back  to  it  iu  the  same  spirit 
in  which  you  do  now.  and  thanked  God  that  he  had 
opposed  it  from  the  beginning.  Mr.  Littlejohn  looked 
back  to  it  in  another  spirit,  and  I  have  no  right  to  say 


he  thanked  God  that  he  had  supported  it  to  the  end. 
Kememberin^,  then,  that  the  relations  of  the  two  pur- 
ties  were  precisely  the  same  at  tl  e  dates  of  the  two  ar- 
tichs;  that  they  were  written  iu  the  like  spiiit,  and 
with  the  same  purpose  and  intent,  le'  us  recur  to  the  ar- 
ticle of  Sept.  11,  wliich  is  made  evidence  by  the  idaintiff 
to  ascertain  what  was  in  the  mind  of  Mr.  Greelev,  and 
whether  he  meant  to  chari^e  Mr.  Liltlejohu  w'lih  sell- 
ing bis  own  vote,  or  simply  meant  to  charKe  that  the 
le^iii-lation  was  unpatiiotic  and  corrupt;  that  it  was 
desiiiued  to  advance  otiier  interests  than  the  public 
good;  that  those  who  advocated  it  were  either  de- 
ceived or  deceivers;  and  that  so  believing,  he  was  iu- 
tlexibly  opposed  to  their  re-election. 

Lkgislativk  CoKKrPTio.v.— Certain  local  journals  perBistin 
niisreiirefcentatiouH  of  the  course  of  The  Thibi  ne  reS'pectbig 
State  mattera  so  gross  th»t  we  cannot  refrain  from  noticing  them. 
We  take  the  followlDg  from  a  leader  in  the  last  Chautauqua  Dem- 
ocrat aa  a  s  imple: 

"  There  may  have  been,  and  doubtless  was,  thn  usual  amount 
ol  '  Legislative  corruption'  at  Albany  last  W  inter." 

"  The  usvol  amount  of  Legislative  corruption  at  Al- 
bany?" Time-honored  nsiiges  of  our  ancestors! 
What  has  become  of  them  ?  There  was  a  period  in  our 
history  when  high  cflices  were  filled  hf  u])right 
men.  Those  whose  lives  touched  the  era  of  the  Kevo- 
lution,  retained  the  spirit  of  patriotism  its  fires  had 
kindled  and  loathed  crime  and  corruption  and  ve- 
nality. But  here  a  prominent  public  journal  enters  the 
lists  against  Thk  TuiiaxK  and  iniiuiates  that  there  is 
a  usage  of  corrupiion  which  Keimblicans  are  bound  to 
respect !  It  is  because  corruption  is  ac(iuiring  the 
sanction  of  usage,  gentlemen,  that  ihU  case,  involving 
the  issue  of  corrupt  legisla'ion,  transcends  in  interest 
and  importanre  any  previous  libel  suit  in  this  country. 
The  corrupt ionists  appealed  to  the  i)eople  against  Gov. 
Morgan,  and  were  defeated  by  an  overwhelming  ma- 
jority. They  appealed  to  the  representatives  of  the 
l)eople  at  the  Chicago  Convention,  and  their  support  so 
weakened  the  bauds  of  his  other  supporters,  that  the 
foiemost  statesman  of  the  Hepuhlican  party  fell  in  the 
house  of  his  friends  a  victim  of  corruption  in  which, 
no  share  was  imputed  to  him.    Lei  us  proceed: 

"  But  that  there  was  that  which  should  justify  the  wholesale 
and  iudiscriuiiQate  denunciations  of  that  Legislature,  with 
which  the  columns  of  Thk  TKinrNB  have  teemed  for  many 
months,  we  have  no  evidence  of,  and  do  not  believe. 

"  In  our  county,  Mr.  W.  L.  SeirBions  was  the  special  object  of 
The  TKiBr>E'.s  denunciation,  and  why  ?  Simply  because  he 
was  a /eerf?//'/ and  prominent  member  of  the  Sena, e.  Although 
the  shafts  of  Thk  Tkibi  ne  have  assumed  a  more  personal  aspect 
towards  Mr.  Sessions,  t-.iey  have  been  aimed  indiscriminately  at 
Mr.  Smith  and  every  other  njember  of  the  Legislature.  There 
have  been  no  exceptions  in  this  wholesale  abuse  of  the  last  Leais- 
lature.  If  The  Tkibo'e  was  hone?t,  why  does  it  not  particular- 
ize and  discriminate  ?  There  were  scores  of  Republicans  who 
voted  aijainst  all  those  measures  denounced  as  venal  and  corrupt, 
and  yet  they  are  all  included  in  the  anathemas  of  The  Tribune  " 

xsever,  gentlemen.  If  such  an  article  could  have 
1  eeu  found  it  would  have  been  produced.  Mr.  Greeley 
did  not  denounce  the  entire  Legi.-lature.  He  made  the 
same  disciimination  which  the  people  made.  With 
six  memorable  pxceptione,  the  peo[tle  said  that  of  all 
the  merakiers  of  the  Assembly  who  voted  for  these 
measures  no  man,  whatever  his  private  worth  or 
public  capacity,  should  return  to  the  Capitol.  Mr. 
Greeley's  condemnation  was  of  those  who  voted  for 
these  measures,  not  of  those  who  voted  against  them. 
Let  Mr.  Greeley  speak  for  himself: 

"Every  careful  reader  of  JThe  Tkibt'nk  knows  how  unjust, 
how  essentially  false,  are  t'o  material  portions  of  the  above, 
'l  ime  and  again  have  we  urged  that  very  disci  in. ination  which 
77ie  />t-/rt(jrr((;  accuses  us  ol  ignoiing — time  and  again  have  we 
explained  that  no  Legislature  ever  contai)nd  more  upright  and 
worthy  members  than  our  last.  Messrs.  Bell,  MruruY,  Man- 
lEKKK,  and  others  in  the  Senate— Messrs.  Li cirs  RoBiXsox, 
Conkli.m;,  I-'l.'VGLEK,  Lc,  in  the  House— forming  about  half  the 
Republicans  in  either  branch— were  as  lionet  and  fnithful  legis- 
lator>  as  our  Stute  ever  had  ;  and  this  we  have  repeatedly  asserted 
and  proved  by  their  acts.  There  was  a  very  ditierent  lot  of  Re- 
publicans, however,  forming  nearly  half  of  those  elected,  who 
conspired  with  seven-eighths  to  nine- tenths  of  the  Democrats  to 


39 


pass  some  of  the  most  corrupt  and  unjustifiable  acts  that  ever 
were  put  through  a  Legislature,  as  our  columns  have  likewise 
repeatedly  shown.  That  Mr.  Sessions's  name  appears  habitually 
in  the  latter  category,  we  deeply  regret :  but  the  fault  is  entirely 
hi*  own.  Ttiere  may  have  been  fools  in  that  Legislature  who 
Toted  wrongly  because  thej'  knew  no  better ;  but  he  is  not  one  of 
these. 

''  As  we  a'e  challerged  for  specifications,  with  the  cool  asser- 
tion that  there  was  '  the  usual  amount  of  Legislative  corruption 
at  Albany  last  U'inter,'  "we  will  merely  premise  tbat,  if  that 
was  but  '  the  MiJ/aZ  amount,'  it  is  high  time  that  it  should  be 
rendered  ?/«usual,  and  this,  by  the  blessing  of  God  and  with  the 
help  of  the  People,  we  mean  to  secure.  To  this  end,  let  us  once 
more  proceed  to  discrinjinadons  and  specificatiDus. 

'•  We  fear  it  is  true  that  some  '  LegiJative  corruption'  is 
'  usual'  at  Albany  and  at  other  capitals  ;  but  has  it  ever  before 
p.^ncf  eded  to  such  extent  that  a  Governor  has  felt  constrained  to 
veto  i>j  s  jcce^sion  half  a  dozen  of  the  principal  measures  of  a 
Legislature  wherein  his  political  friends  had  a  majority  ?  We 
can  recollect  but  two  instances  of  this— one  in  Fenn'pylvania, 
when  Gov.  Snyder  was  compelled  to  resort  to  the  extremity  of 
dissolving  the  Legislature,  to  prevent  the  corrupt  passage  of  a 
lot  of  Bank  charters  ;  and  one  in  our  own  State,  wherein  Gov. 
Tomptiiis  had  to  do  suhstantially  the  same.  In  eirher  case, 
public  sentiment  almost  unanimously  condemned  the  Legis- 
lative majority  and  sustained  the  Governor— as  we  are  sure  it 
does  now.    So  much  for  what  is  '  usual'  in  this  line." 


Here,  gentlemen,  you  have  two  branches  of  the  Re- 
publican party— that  of  which  Mr.  Greeley  is  the 
acknowledged  national  exponent,  and  the  other,  6ome 
of  whose  leaders  have  honored  us  with  their  presence. 
Some  of  5'ou,  I  doubt  not,  noticed  the  benign  and 
beaming  smile  which  illumined  the  commanding  fea- 
tures of  one  of  these  chieftains  when  the  ruling  was  an- 
nounced which  secured  immunity  to  the  Lobby,  so  far 
at  least  as  the  present  trial  is  concerned.  It  iu  no  de- 
gree impairs  the  force  of  the  decit-ion  as  the  law  of  t  lis 
■case,  and  yet  I  fear  the  rulings  may  have  been  misun- 
derstood, and  that  even  the  lobby  may  find  that  there 
is  little  occasion  for  coogratulation  in  the  decisions 
made  on  this  trial,  when  their  limirs  and 
•application  are  more  epecitica'ly  defined.  You 
perceive,  gentlemen,  from  the  extract  embodied 
in  this  article  that  a  Republican  journal  adverse  to  Mr. 
Oreeiey  does  not  deny  the  corruption  of  the  bills  in 
question,  and  does  not  claim  that  the  votes  in  their 
favor  can  be  defended.  But  he  bege  Mr.  Greeley  to 
discriminate.  All  our  friends  did  not  vote  for  these 
measures — do  justice  ! — do  justire  by  publishing  the 
names  of  the  Republicans  who  voted  manfully  to  defeat 
them. 

And  in  this  opinion  our  learned  friends  seem  to  con- 
cur. Bear  in  mind  the  aduiission  which  yesterday  fell 
Kke  a  knell  from  the  lips  of  one  of  the  learned  counsel 
— "  We  will  admit  that  these  bills  were  all  corru[it,  if  j 
you  choose;"  and  that  admission  we  accepted,  without 
■v^aiving  the  ottered  proof. 

'When  all  men  agree  that  the?e  laws  were  corrupt, 
when  the  plaintift"  admits  that  he  was  their  advocate, 
VfSiB  it  not  time  for  a  Republican  to  hold  those  re- 
sponsible who  voted  for  their  enactment  ?  [Mr.  Por- 
ter then  read  the  residue  of  the  article  of  Sept.  11,  as 
contained  in  the  evidence,  and  proceeded  in  his  com- 
ments.] You  perceive,  gentlemen,  that  Mr.  Greeley  ' 
throughout  deals  only  with  political  action  and  politi- 1 
cal  responsibility,  ile  divides  those  who  sustained  | 
these  corrupt  measures  into  two  classes,  the  deceivers 
and  the  deceived,  and  considers  them  in  either  case 
unsafe  custodians  of  public  rights.  He  was  opposed 
alike  to  the  re-election  of  those  who,  having  eyes, 
could  not  see  or  would  not,  and  those  who  looked  cor- 
ruption straight  in  the  fare,  and  struck  hands  with  it. 
Was  he  not  right  ?  Is  not  that  your  theory  ? 
It  is  the  theory  on  which  Gov.  Morgan  went  down  to 
the  people  at  the  Fall  election,  and  obtained  that  noble 
and  triumphant  verdict,  a  worthy  tribute  to  an  able, 
fearless  ai.d  upright  man.  "  It  is  worthy  of  note  that 
Mr.  Greeley,  on  public  grounds,  condemns  all  alike 
who  voted  for  these  measures.  If  it  is  a  libel  on  Mr. 
Littlejohn,  it  is  equally  a  libel  on  each  of  the  eighty- 
three  members  who  supported  the  corrupt  bills."  Of 
all  these  gentlemen  he  alone  claims  to  have  been  tra- 
duced.  In  view  of  the  tacts  to  which  I  have  referred, 


how  should  he  commend  it  to  your  favorable  considera- 
tion. My  friends  will  do  it  much  better,  but 
if  I  were  compelled  to  present  it,  could  1 
do  it  better  than  in  some  such  form  as  this: 
"  I  voted  for  these  Railroad  bills,  which  seem  to  be 
conceded  by  all  men  to  be  corrupt ;  I  voted  for  the 
grant  of  millions  to  pditical  paupers  and  scheming 
millionaires.  I  voted  to  prohibit  railroads  forever  in 
the  chief  avenues  of  New-York,  unless  by  the  consent 
of  named  and  nameless  grantees,  and  this  under  color 
of  a  grant  of  further  railroads  in  Xew-York.  I  now 
demand  your  verdict  declaring  that  I  was  not  corrupt. 
I  voted  for  the  West  Washington  Market  bill.  I 
voted  to  sacrifice  property  of  the  State  of  immense 
value,  by  an  unusuil  measure,  which  tended  to 
put  public  rights  in  jeopardy,  and  advance  private 
interests  by  interfering  with  the  ordinary  ad- 
ministration of  the  courts  of  justice.  These 
meas^ures  I  voted  for  understandingly.  I  had  no- 
tice from  the  Governor  of  their  flagrant  character. 
1  left  the  Speaker's  chair  to  advocate  them  on  the 
floor  of  the  House.  Through  my  prominent  support 
of  those  bills,  they  are  now  recorded  in  your  statute- 
books.  The  measures  were  corrupt,  but  I  am  iuno- 
cent.  I  took  no  bribe.  I  made  no  gain.  Horace 
Greeley  said  I  was  prominent  in  this  legit^lation.  He 
is  a  wanton  libeler.    I  demand  your  verdict." 

I  hope  my  friends  will  be  able  to  present  his  case 
more  favorably;  but  I  have  given  its  leading  features 
as  they  impressed  my  mind  during  the  progress  of  the 
trial.  I  need  scarcely  recur  to  the  prominent  charac- 
teristics of  the  Gridiron  bill.-!i,  so  admirably  analyzed 
in  the  masterly  opening  argument  of  my  associate. 
You  remember  that  they  were  grants  in  perpetuity, 
obviously  framed  to  evade  the  Constitution,  and  with- 
out the  usual  reservation  of  the  power  to  alter  and 
repeal.  You  remember  they  were  grants  of  franchises 
invaluable  for  use,  invaluable  for  disuse,  made  market- 
able alike  to  tho;e  who  would  build  roads  and 
those  who  would  prohibit  their  construction  for 
the  purpose  of  excluding  rivalry  and  perpetuating 
monopolies  already  overgrown.  They  were  grants 
not  to  corporations"  subject  to  general  la^rs,  but  to  men 
whose  names  are  unknown  as  benefactors  of  their  coun- 
try, who  a:  e  scarred  with  no  wounds,  unless  they  be 
wounds  received  at  the  primary  meetings  of  hostile 
parties — men  who  have  not  augmented  your  revenues 
by  public  works,  illustrated  your  history  by  their 
genius,  or  enhanced  your  glory  among  the  nations. 
No,  they  are  grants  to  lawyers  of  whom  you  never 
heard ;  to  brewers  whose  names  are  new  to  your  eai*; 
to  hackneyed  politicians  whose  reputations  are 
too  familiar  to  commend  them  to  your  regard. 
To  such  men,  of  whom  we  are  at  liberty  to  say  nothing 
except  as  you  happen  to  know  of  them,  or  as  you 
yourselves'  are  ignorant  of  them,  were  these  grants 
made  by  Speaker  Littlejohn  and  his  associates.  And 
here  too  we  have  another  attempt  to  intermeddle  with 
the  administration  of  justice,  and  to  carve  out  for  the 
George  Laws  or  others  who  may  have  control  of  these 
roads,  a  convenient  judicial  district,  within  which 
alone  all  causes  are  to  be  tried  ia  which  the  proprietors 
of  the  roads  may  be  concerned,  and  for  what  reasons 
it  is  not  difiicult  to  conjecture.  Was  this  scheme 
fraudulent  upon  its  face  as  disclosed  in  the  statute 
book?  Does  it  reek  with  shameless,  open,  undis- 
sembled  fraud  ?  So  Horace  Greeley  thought,  and  in 
this  respect  I  do  not  understand  the  learned  counsel 
for  the  defendant  to  ditter  from  him. 

Mr.  Foster — The  counsel  said  no  such  thing.  I 
think  it  is  time  to  interrupt  this  course  of  argument. 

Mr.  Porter — Mr.  Sedgwick  stated  in  his  argument 
yesterday,  to  which  Mr.  Williams  replied,  that  they 
would  admit  that  all  these  bills  were  corrupt  if  we 
chose. 

Mr.  Foster — No,  Sir,  he  said  no  such  thing. 

Mr.  Sedgwick — We  do  not  mean  to  say  so. 

Mr.  Porter — When  the  counsel  make 'an  admission 


40 


becomes  the  property  of  tlie  canpe.  It  belongs 
to  both  imrtieH.  I  cannot  concede  the  ik'ht  of  counKcl 
to  withdraw  an  iidniiMhion  made  in  prcseni-e  of  tlie 
Jury,  even  on  the  ground  that  he  did  not  mean  to 
make  it. 

Mr.  Sepgwick— I  did  not  8!^y  I  did  not  mean  to 
pay  it.  I  say  expressly  I  did  not  say  any  such 
thinp. 

Mr.  Williams— We  certainly  eo  understood  it  dis- 
tinctly. 

Mr.  PoRTEiJ — i  have  no  doubt  my  ela(nient  friend 
thinks  he  did  not  make  the  adnii>bion;  we  otten,  in  the 
earneptnoss  of  discuseion,  say  what  we  do  not  reinem 
her  afterward,  our  minds  bei  ig  eni/rossed  by  tlie  main 
qneetion  involved  iu  the  dipcuseion,  aid  it  "not  unfre- 
fjuenily  happens  tluit  we  8^^y  more  than  at  tlie  time  we 
intend.  I  heard  what  my  iriend  paid,  and  called  tlie 
attention  of  my  ast^ociate  to  it  at  the  time.  I  felt  the 
importance  of  tlie  admipsion,  and  took  occasion  to 
allude  to  it  in  my  own  pubse<inent  argument  to  the 
Court,  and  there  "was  at  that  time  no  di^chiimer.  We 
have  acted  upon  it  on  the  trial,  and  I  cannot  consent 
that  it  be  withdrawn  frc  m  the  Jury.  But 
neither  the  counsel  nor  myself  can  be  under 
embarrassment  on  that  "subject;  for  hip 
client  has  chopcn  to  make  evidence  of  the 
statement  of  Mr.  Oreeley  in  Thk  Tiuhi  nk  of  Sept.  11; 
and  the  corrupt  character  of  those  n  easares  is  thus  es- 
tabliphed  by  the  concurrent  assent  of  both  parties. 
These  were  the  measures  advocated  by  Speaker  Little- 
john  with  notice  from  Gov.  Morgan  of  their  "fla- 
grant" character.  I  am  not  called,  as  the  evidence 
now  s'ands,  to  argue  the  question  as  to  his  motive.  It 
is  sufficient  for  my  luirpoee  that  i\Ir.  Greeley,  in  the  al- 
leged libel,  did  not  charge  him  with  corruption.  In  the 
previous  article  he  conceded  that  all  were  not  corrupt- 
ed. He  claimed  that  some  were  bought,  but  I  e  made 
no  such  claim  as  to  Speaker  Littlejohn.  Some  he  in- 
sisted were  bought  and  paid  for.  They  made  sale  of 
their  souls.  They  thought  they  were  only  sell- 
ing their  votes.  Some  voted  for  the  bills  not 
knowing  what  they  did,  but  he  was  o/jiosed  to 
tl  e  re-election  of  all,  not  excepting  Speukei  Litllejon. 
But  we  are  furnished  by  the  plaintifl'  with  other 
evidence,  whi?h  he  could  introduce,  though  we  could 
not,  and  which  utterly  excludes  the  only  construction 
that  can  render  the  publication  libelous.  The  plain- 
tiff introduces  Mr.  Greeley's  statement  in  Lis  letter  of 
26th  November.  If  you  believe  it,  the  phiintitf  is 
bound  by  it.  Iu  that  letter  which  you  have  heard 
twice  read  already,  3Ir.  Greeley  disclaims  any  inten- 
tion ///  any  previous  pnljUcntion  to  impute  personal 
corru[  tion  to  Speaker  Littlejohn.  Both  sides  agree 
that  in  the  light  of  this  evidence  you  are  to  read  the 
alleged  libel — that  they  are  all  written  in  the  same 
spirit — that  in  each  V oil  find  the  heart  and  purpose  of 
Horace  Greeley.  What  then  was  the  intent  and  im- 
port of  the  article  ?  I  know  those  measures  were  cor- 
rupt. I  do  not  know  that  Speaker  Littlejohn 
was  corrupt.  I  do  not  know  that  he  was 
bribed.  I  do  know  that  he  was  their  prominent 
advocate, — and  knowing  that  I  cannot  advise  his 
re-election — certainly  not  by  KepuMican  votes.  If 
this  is  the  fair  import  and  intent  of  the  article,  it  was 
a  fair  and  just  criticism  upon  his  public  acts.  It  was 
made  in  good  fuith,  from  a  sense  of  public  duty  and 
not  of  malice.  If  you  so  read  this  article,  it  will  be 
your  right  and  your  duty  to  find  a  verdict  for  the  de- 
fendant. I  a^sume  that  the  Court  will  so  instruct  you. 
A.«i  I  do  not  know  what  may  be  your  conclusion  on 
this  subject,  1  will  advert  briefly  to  such  other  ques- 
tions as  you  may  find  it  necessary  to  consider. 

In  this  case  we  have  ])roved  affirmatively  the  ab- 
sence of  all  malice,  lliat  this  is  matter  of  oefense  to 
the  claim  for  damages  beyond  the  amount  of  j'roved 
and  actual  injury  will  j>robably  he  c(»nceded.  But  I 
am  ))onnd  to  suJimit  to  the  Court  another  view  of  this 
-ubject,  which  has  been  contidered  and  elaborated  on 


authorirjr  by  mjriearned  associate.  It  is  that  whero 
malice,  is  affirmatively  disproved,  the  gravamen  of  the 
action  is  gone,  and  there  is  no  civil  remedy  in  such  a 
cat-e,  even  for  actual  damages.  I  do  not  aver  il  to  lie 
the  law,  but  I  submit  the  ([UCftion  lor  decision.  The 
earliest  and  laleet  autlioritiea  agree  in  the  i>roi)0>iliou 
that  malice  is  thf^  gist  of  the  a(  tion,  and  without  actual 
malice  established  either  by  proof  or  presuiujilion,  there 
can  be  no  recovery.  Thuauthoriiiesfurtherestnblisb  the 
pr(>i)osition  that  the  presuAiption  of  malice  from  tlie 
faiseliood  oi  the  publication  may  be  repelled  by  jiroof. 
The  ]n-inciple8  involved  in  the  consideration  of  tiiis 
(luestion  are  discussed  in  a  luminous  ojiinion  of  Mr. 
Justice  Selden  in  a  case  to  which  I  will  give  your 
honor  a  reference.  The  commonly-received  opinion 
hiis  been  that  the  presumption  of  malice  can  only  be 
rej  elled  by  jiroof  that  the  communication  was  piivi- 
leged.  It  may-,  perhaps,  well  lie  considered  w+iether 
this  restriction  has  not  rested  on  the  practical  dilliculty 
in  other  cases  of  rebutting  the  presumption  of  mali' e. 
Until  the  recent  changes  in  our  law  of  evidence,  the 
])arty  wb^  could  alone  elfectually  rejiel  the  iu- 
terence  of  malice,  and  until  the  recent  decision 
by  the  Court  of  Appeals,  no  witnef-s  was 
permitti  d  to  testifv  to  his  own  secret  intent.  These 
changes  may  well  have  thrown  open  the  question 
whether  the  rule  of  civil  protection  may  not  extend  to 
all  cases  where  malice  is  expressly  disproved,  and  the 
pul>licati()n  ismade  on  probable  cause,  in  good  faith, 
and  from  commendable  motives.  This  is  not  the  ap- 
propriate occasion  for  an  extended  di^cusfioo,  and  we 
are  content  to  take  your  Honor  s  ruling,  giving  a  note 
of  a  few  authori'ies  of  which  such  as  are  accessible 
here  will  be  handed  up  to  the  Court.  ,  (16,  New-York 
Kepoits  372;  15,  New-York  E.  120;  1,  Wendell's  Star- 
kie  266;  4,  Barnw.  and  Cress  247).  Had  Mr.  Greeley 
reason,  from  the  public  acts  of  the  plaintiff,  to  believe 
that  the  matter  alleged  to  l)e  libeh:)U6  was  true  in  wliat- 
!  ever  sense  it  may  be  construed  ?  If  the  acts  of  Speaker 
Littlejohn  misled  the  defendant  and  the  pulilic  into 
even  an  erroneous  belief  that  he  acted  from  improper 
motives,  he  cannot  comjilain  of  the  consequences  of 
his  own  wrong,  as  if  it  were  the  wrong  of  another. 

I  have  referred  to  these  legislative  acts,  and  read 
them  in  the  course  of  my  argument  not  as  eviience, 
but  as  laws;  which  the  Court,  the  parties,  the  Jury,  and 
the  counsel  are  bound  to  know.    They  are  our  only 
authentic  history.    They  are  presumed  to  be  read  an(l 
known  by  all  men.    If  you  violate  them,  though  you 
'  never  saw  them,  vou  incur  the  penalties  they  impose. 
If  your  own  rights  are  invaded,  though  you  never 
heard  of  their  existence,  they  secure  to  you  protec- 
tion and  redress.    Mr.  Littlejohn  is  proved  to  have 
'  voted  for  them  and  advocated  them.    If  you  believe, 
upon  the  face  of  these  laws,  that  they  were  corrupt; 
that  Littlejohn  supported  them  not  with  an  eye  to  the 
public     good,     but     from     other     and  })rivate 
I  motives,     I    care    not    what    they    were,  you 
j  will    have    no    difficulty    in    characterizing  his 
I  act.    I  said  your   farms '  were  mortgaged  for  the 
benefit  of  puhlic  plunderers.    Suppose  the  Legislature 
I  of  1860  by  a  shorter  cut,  and  they  loved  short  cuts,  had 
{  chosen  to"  enact  that  the  jieople  of  the  State  of  New- 
York  shouhl  give  to  George  Law  and  Isaiah  Kynders 
— each   representative   men,  but  of  widely  variant 
classes — $.),0U0,000,  and  that  the  tax-gatherer  should 
call  on  the  farmers  of  New-York  to  relieve  their  faims 
of  the  incumbrances  created  by  the  act  for  the  benefit 
of  these  two  public  benefactors — if  De  Witt  C.  Little- 
jolin  had  voted  for  that  bill  would  not,  all  the  nation 
I  have  cried  shame  ?    There  is  legislation  of  a  character 
I  BO  gross  that  no  room  is  left  to  doubt  the  intent  of  its 
!  advocates.    I  put  the  case  by  way  of  illustrating  with 
'  jirecision  the  rule  of  presumption  on  (luestions  of 
'  motives    and    intent.     There    are    acts    so  fla- 
grant    on     their     face;     so     directly    at  war 
i  with    the    public    good;     so    incoiiMstent  with 
honest  intent,  that  we  may  presume,  in  the  absence  of 


41 


other  proof,  the  presence  of  unworthy  motivee.  In 
the  case  supposed,  you  need  not  ask  whether  an  intel- 
liiient  man  wbo  voted  for  the  bill  was  honest  or  cor- 
rupt. If  you  knew  he  was  not  bribed,  you  would  feel 
that  he  had  not  even  the  erccuse  of  interest  to  cover  a 
bold,  naked  act  of  flagrant  corruption.  If  in  such  a 
case  he  was  bribed  iu  fact,  you  would  expect  no  wit- 
ness, and  need  none  beyond  the  act.  The  bill  and  the 
vote  would  point  to  the  guilty  motive  as  unmistakably 
as  the  bloody  dagger  iu  the  vision  of  Macbeth  to  the 
bloody  hand.  Whether  the  plaintiff  was  corrupt  or  not, 
the  fact  is  undisputed  that  Mr.  Greeley  so  believed. 
If  he  did  not  believe  that  legit^lation  was  corrupt,  was 
there  another  man  in  all  this  State  who  did  not  be- 
lieve it  /  Turn  it  over  in  your  minds.  Have  you  ever 
iu  partisan  di-scussion,  in  your  interviews  with  politi- 
cal friends  or  political  foes,  met  one  man  so  shameless 
as  to  avow  he  did  not  believe  it  ?  As  you  believed, 
Horace  Greeley  believed.  I  appeal  to  the  bold,  manly 
utterance  of  bis  belief,  in  the  article  of  the  lltb  of  Sep- 
tember, in  which  he  states  the  grounds  of  bis  belief  at 
the  peril  of  eighty-three  libel  suits.  If  the  article  now 
in  question  is  a  libel,  then  eighty-three  times  $25,000 
is  the  sum  of  the  debts  he  owes,  contracted  in 
two  columns  of  The  Tribune  in  a  single  day. 

I  appeal  to  that  noble  letter,  in  reply  to  the  menace 
of  a  libel-suit,  in  which  he  frankly  avows  to  Mr.  Little- 
john,  that  he  entertains  the  opinion  which  he  cannot 
change;  that  these  measures  were  corrupt,  and  equally 
,  frankly  disclaims  any  intention  in  his  previous  articles 
'  to  impute  to  him  personal  corruption.  I  appeal  to  the 
oath  of  Horace  Greeley — an  oath  upon  which  an  honest 
man  can  rest  as  upon  a  rock.  He  spoke,  gentlemen, 
what  the  ai'chives  of  the  State  will  speak  forever  ! 
He  spoke  what  Gov.  Morgan,  in  his  veto  message  pro- 
claimed to  history — what  every  man  in  this  State  of  or- 
dinary Intel  igence  believes — what  you  believe  in  your 
consciences  and  upon  your  oaths — and  what  the  damn- 
ing records  of  these  public  acts  will  forever  prove.  Did 
Horace  Greeley  believe  the  matter  alleged  in  this  arti- 
cle ?  Do  you  see  and  know,  and  did  he  see  and  know, 
that  Mr.  Littlejohn  was  either  a  culpable  agent  or  a 
deluded  instrument  ?  Do  you  feel  this  the  only  legiti- 
mate inference  from  the  act  unexplained?  Has  he 
availed  himself  of  the  opportunity  to  present  himself  on 
the  stand  and  explain  the  act  and  the  motive  ?  Do  you 
believe  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Conklin,  that  this  plain- 
tiff, whether  deceived  or  deceiver,  was  prominent  in 
the  advocacy  of  those  corrupt  measures  ?  In  either  caee 
he  was  not  entitled  to  re-election,  and  that  is  what 
these  articles  oeclare,  and  what  1  trust,  for  the  honor 
of  the  State,  for  the  honor  of  Oswego,  this  Jury  will 
declare  !  ^  \Vhat  motive  had  Mr.  Greeley  for  making 
the  publication,  if  he  did  not  believe  it  ?  These  men 
were  his  political  friends  and  associates.  Why  make 
enemies  of  eighty-three  public  men,  all  occupying 
prominent  portions — all  indorsed  by  their  respeciix  e 
constituents  as  men  of  influence  and  honor  \  He  loved 
the  paity  of  which  he  was  a  chief  tain ;  but  he  was 
true  to  his  convictions,  and  on  a  question  of  public 
right  and  public  duty,  spared  neither  friend  nor  foe. 
He  proved  his  faith  b}^  his  works.  What  he  believed 
he  uttered.  He  believes  it  now.  You  believe 
it  now;  and  Mr.  Littlejohn  has  not  chosen 
to  shake  either  your  belief  or  his  by  his  oath.  If 
that  belief  was  wrong,  had  Mr.  not  Littlejohn  by  his 
public  acts  given  Mr.  Greeley,  and  the  people  of  this 
State,  reason  to  believe  that  he  was  a  prominent  advo- 
cate of  corrupt  legislation  ?  If  we  have  been  misled, 
has  it  not  been  by  his  own  acts  ?  not  done  secretly  and 
in  a  corner,  but  m  the  broad  blaze  of  noon  and  under 
the  high  canopy  of  heaven;  done  in  the  view  of  the 
people  at  their  Capital.  Mr.  Littlejohn  must  abide  by 
the  rule  by  which  we  must  all  abide.  The  tree  is 
known  by  its  fruits.  Where  the  act  is  of  such  a 
character  as  to  lead  the  mind  involuntarily  to  the  con- 
clusion that  it  proceeded  from  bad  motives  or  sriaoge 
delusion,  it  demands  explanation,  and  until  ex]  luiiitd 


the  mind  rests  on  its  first  conclusion.    Mr.  Littlejohn 
sought  publicity  and  he  found  it !     Washington  at  the 
close  ot  a  long  and  honored  life,  sought  retirement  and 
found  it.   They  were  going  in  opposite  directions. 
Littlejohn  was  bound  upward,  and  like  every  man  that 
climbs,  he  must  take  the  peril  of  the  climber.    He  who 
risesabove  the  mass  of  men  must  exj)ect  observation  and 
scrutiny.  He  who  invites  judgment,  must  abide  judg- 
ment; he  who  enters  the  walks  of  public  life  with  a  char- 
acter that  shrinks  from  scrutiny,  and  cannot  be  trusted 
to  live  down  political  criticism  on  jiublic  acts,  has  mis- 
taken his  vocation.    I  neither  claim  nor  concede  that 
a  candidate  for  ottlce  may  be  wantonly  traduced,  but 
when  his  public  acts  are  criticized  fairly,  without  mal- 
ice, in  good  faith,  with  probable  cause," I  claim  that  he 
is  entitled  to  no  special  favor  from  jurors  or  from 
couits,  when  he  brings  his  character  to  the  forum,  for 
the  purpose  of  converting  it  into  money.    Like  the 
author  who  invites  publicity  by  issuing  a  new  volume  to 
the  world,  he  invites  honest  censure,  when  he  demands 
undue  commendation.    Above  all,  should  the  plaintiff 
in  such  a  suit  be  sure  that  his  own  act  has  not  misled 
the  man  he  prosecutes.   Take,  for  instance,  the  West 
Washington  market  bill — one  of  those  bills  almost  un- 
heard of  iu  the  annals  of  corruption,  to  withdraw  law- 
suite,  by  legislation,  from   the  tribunals  of  public 
justice.    It  speaks  its  purpose  on  its  face.    It  bears 
the  bi-and  of  the  Governor  s  veto.    It  shocked  the 
moral  sense  of  the  community.    It  is  stamped  by  the 
public  judgment  as  a  bald  attempt  to  cover  up  by  legis- 
lative fraud  a  fraud  committed  in  the  courts,  and  with- 
out a  judicial  hearing  to  dispose  by  a  quasi  commission 
of  the  rights  of  three  quarters  of  a  million  of  men, 
women,  "and  children!    Your  public  documents  dis- 
close its  character,  the  Governor's  veto  exhibits  it  in 
i  all  its  tiagrancy,  all  parties  agree  that  it  was  corrupt ! 
i  When  men  excuse  themselves  for  their  votes  by  the 
;  plea  of  blindness  and  iunorance,  does  it  not  require 
i  ecme    boldness    to   select   as    the   foundation  of 
i  a   libel-suit   the    strictures  of    a   journalist  upon 
la   law    which   the    plaintifl's   cotmsel   have  so 
j  strenuously  sought  to  exclude  fromyour  consideration? 
j  They  challenged  us  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  pablica- 
I  tion.    We  accepted  the  invitation,  and  tendered  the 
;  proof.    On  their  objection  it  was  excluded.  They 
,  seek  to  ignore  the  West  Washington  Market  bill.  I 
would  counsel  them  to  do  go.    But  you  cannot  iynore 
;  it.    The  facts  are  in,  in  part  at  least.  When'they 
:  proved  Mr.  Greeley's  article  of  11th  Sept.,  and  his 
:  Bubsecj^uent  letter,  they  proved  too  much.    In  support 
;  of  this  bill  the  plaintilf  surrendered  the  Speaker's 
I  mace,  and  took  the  floor  as  champion  against  the  veto. 
Why  shrink  from  the  disclosures  apprehended  from  our 
'  witnesses  ?    You  saw  Taylor  here — no  williog  witness 
'  — brought  here  as  a  prisoner  for  viola'ing  the  mandate 
'  of  the  Court  requiiing  bis  attendance  as  a  witness. 
\     Gentlemen:  What  manner  of  laws  are  these  from 
;  the  investigation  of  which,  iu  open  day,  their  advocates 
1  recoil  ?  What  manner  of  laws  are' those  which  the 
I  learned  counsel  is  unwilling  to  have  read  in  your  hear- 
'  ing,  and  w  ill  not  submit  to  your  judg-ment'/  And  why, 
iu  a  search  after  truth,  do  they  choose  darkness  rather 
than  ligh  ,  and  seek  shelter  constantly  beneath  the 
j  long  robes  of  the  law  ?    Enough  appears  in  this  case 
i  to  show  that  more  ought  to  appear  before  the  plaintiff 
^  can  entitle  himself  to  your  veraict.    As  with  the  Mar- 
ket bill,  so  with  the  Gridiron  bills.    Take  one  as  an 
\  illustration:  Speaker  Littlejohn  and  his  associates  gave 
>  the  franchise  of  a  railroad  that  girdled  the  metropolis 
'  of  the  Kew  World,  inclosing  a  population  of  three- 
quarters  of  a  million,  the  heart,  the  li  e,  and  the  wealth 
,  of  the  nation,      a  free  i:ij't  to  men  unknown  as  public 
benefactors — ^(tve  it,  as  your  State  archives  show, 
when  responsible  parties  were  willing  to  pay  half  a 
-million  for  the  grant;  rejected  security  when  it  was 
oftiered,  and  gave  it  without  security— .^'^ore  it  when 
you  were  paying  a  tax  of  four  millions  to  save  the 
State  from  repudiation — nay,  gave  millions  more — 


42 


gave  it  in  peqietuity,  to  day,  to-movrow,  and  forever — 
gave  it  with  n»)tii-e  fn-m  the  Governor  of  its 
forrnp'ioti — ;;ave  it  to  be  ;rauil)l»d  for  at  tlie  faro- 
taliles  of  New- York.  They  marked  the  lines  of  other 
jiitta  ut  niillionn  jilone  the  gieat  avenues  of  industry 
and  I'omnierie,  in  a  lily  contuii.iiig  one-liftli  of  the 
l'0[)ulation  of  the  State.  Tliese  men  did  not  eell,  buf; 
alienated,  without  money  and  without  price,  loyal 
franchises,  jiarcel  of  your  State  Bovereignty.  The  bills 
came  into  the  Assembly  Clianiber.  Speaker  Litilejohn 
was  tlieir  chanij'ion,  and  (Jov.  Morgan  the  channiion 
of  the  public.  The  (iovernor  was  strong  in  the  I'eo- 
ple's  conlidence.  The  Speaker  was  stionjier  in  the 
Veople's  c-apit!il,  where  the  air  was  dai  k  with  ui\(  lean 
birds.  He  trinn)plied.  Was  it  the  triumpli  of  legis- 
lative purity  or  legislative  corruption  ?  Tlie  learned 
counsel  claims  that  he  was  not  paid  for  his  voice  and 
Lis  vote,  and  he  wants  bis  pay  now  from  Horace 
Greeley.    How  much  ? 

Gentlemen,  I  am  detaining  you  too  long.  On 
tliemes  like  these  I  could  weary  you  to  the  going  down 
of  the  Bun.  But  1  am  content  to  pause  heie  and  com- 
mit the  rights  of  my  client  to  your  keepiiiir — for  it  is  to 
you,  and  not  to  the  Court,  that  the  law  commits  them 
on  the  gieat  issue  in  this  case.  If  you  fa  l  to  dispose 
ot  it  on  the  (|uer«tion  of  libel  or  no  libel,  the  legic^lation 
is  before  you,  naked,  sbaineless,  corruj>t.  The  promi- 
nent advocate  of  that  legislation  is  before  you,  calmly 
asking  your  a]>proval  and  commendation.  You  are  to 
inquire":  1.  Did  31  r.  Greeley  impute  to  the  plaintili' 
personal  biil>ery  and  corruntiou  I  2.  Has  be  been 
damnified  by  the  supposed  <  n:M'ge  in  bis  politi -al  char- 
acter 1  3.  Was  the  publication  made  u  itbout  mt.lice,ia 
good  faith,  and  from  a  high  sense  of  public  outy  4.  Did 
Mr.  Greeley  lirmly  l)tlieve  the  facts  stated  in  the 
publication  /  and  had  Li  tlejohn  by  his  public  acts 
given  him  good  reason  to  believe  tliera  to  be  true? 

If  the  public-iii  >n  was  true,  silence  on  the  par^  of 
Mr.  Greeley  would  have  been  criminal.  If  Littlejobn 
had  given  him  good  reason  to  believe  it  to  be  true,  si- 
Jence  on  his  part,  though  it  ndght  have  been  politic, 
would  ttill  have  been  criminal.  He  was  not  silent. 
He  spoke — a3yousp<.ke — as  the  Goyernor  spoke — as 
the  neople  spoke,  aud  as  I  trust  you  will  speak  by  your 
verd  ci !  If,  as  I  hope,  that  veryict  shall  be  f>»r  the 
defendant,  it  will  l)e  one  to  which  every  honest  man 
in  the  State  will  promptly  and  cordi'ally  respond 

A.Mt.N  ! 

.MR.    FOSTER'S    CLOSING    ARGUMENT    FOR  THE 
PLAINTIFF. 

If  the  Court  Please — This,  gentlemen  of  the 
Jury,  is  an  action  of  very  great  importance,  as  the 
counsel  on  the  other  side  has  already  told  you.  It  is  to 
determine,  in  my  judgment,  whether  private  character 
is  worth  preserving,  and  whether  it  is  entitled  to  any 
protection  in  courts  of  law,  against  unjust  assaults,  or 
whether  the  public  press  shall  run  riot  in  its  abuse  of  in- 
dividuals, whether  in  public  or  in  private  station.  It 
is  in  every  aspect,  very  grave  in  its  considerations;  it 
appeals  to  us  all,  as  men,  as  fathers,  as  brothers,  and 
as  citizens — it  appeals  to  us  alL  as  it  aft'ects  all  the  rela- 
tions in  life.  Some  men,  gentlemen,  esteem  property 
as  above  almost  everything  else;  but  1  care  but  little 
for  that  man  who  does  not  regard  his  character  as 
paramount  to  every  earthly  interest  which  Le  has,  or 
who  does  not  care  for  the  character  of  his  family  as 
far  above  every  other  earthly  interest.  And  the  man 
who  will  sit  down  silently,  and  unoomplaiiiingly,  and 
/quiescent,  under  a  charge  against  bit  public  or  private 
h  onetty  and  character,  is  unworthy  a  jdace  among  the 
.sons  of  men.    I  mean  to  be  as  brief,  geutlemen,  as  the 


circumstances  and  the  facts  of  thia  case  will  allow.  I 
do  not  desire  to  make  any  a]<peals  to  your  passions,  or 
tc^  your  prejudices;  I  shall  attempt  to  address  myself  to 
your  sober  reason  and  your  judgment,  and  if  tail 
tliere,  I  desire  not  to  make  a  lodgment  anywhere  else. 
I  shall  not  expect,  in  connection  with  what  has  already 
been  consumed  in  the  ojiening  on  our  side,  to  occupy 
aliuost  Seven  hours  of  your  time  in  the  arguments  of 
counsel.  I  desire,  gentlemen,  to  place  no  clap-trap  be- 
fore you;  I  desire  only — and  if  I  can  do  so,  I  shall  con- 
sider my  duty  performed — to  place  before  you  the  fact! 
and  the  cin-umstances  which  call  for  your  consi  lera- 
lion  in  this  case,  and  which,  in  my  judgment,  will  lead 
you  to  a  correct  result. 

We  have  had  in  this  case,  on  the  part  of  the  defense, 
a  most  strange  and  unaccountable  opening.  It  occu-  \ 
pied  three  and  a  half  hours  of  the  time  ot  this  Court 
and  of  this  Jurv.  It  was  strdng«  in  its  every  aspect. 
It  was  talented  and  able;  but  it  seemed  to  have  no  re- 
gaid  whatever  to  the  circumstaiices  and  the  facts  of 
this  case.  It  traveled  all  over  creation — it  assumed  as 
facts  what  tliev  have  never  attempted  toi)rove;  it  was 
rambUng  and  discursive,  and  in  my  judgment,  utterly 
untitled  to  be  presented  in  a  I'lace  like  this.  \N'e  are 
here,  minisfeiing  at  the  altar  ot  the  law;  we  have 
eac  h  and  every  one  of  us  taken  upon  ourselves  the  ob- 
lig'itions  that  belong  to  our  places;  and  in  my  judg- 
ment it  is  juct  as  much  the  duty  of  counsel  to  confine 
themselves  to  matters  w-hich  are* strictly  and  legally  in  f 
the  case,  as  it  is  for  the  Judge,  correctly,  and  to  the 
best  of  his  understandi^ig  and  ability,  to  charge  the 
law  apjilictible  to  the  case;  or  for  the  Jury  upon  their 
oaths  to  tind  what  they  deem  to  be  the  facts  in  the 
case.  This  is  no  place  for  the  use  of  outside  intiuences; 
they  are  unbeconiing  and  nusjdat  ed,  and  in  my  judg- 
nient  it  is  paying  a  very  poor  compliment  to'the  in- 
telligence and  perception  of  the  Jury,  to  try  to  palm 
olf  upon  thtm  sucli  things  in  pieference  to  the  facts 
which  actually  belong  to  the  case.  In  mv  opinion, 
gentlemen,  that  oj  ening  was  made  because  the  counsel 
on  the  other  side  did  not  expect  to  be  allowed  to  give 
such  proof  as  they  had  at  command,  and  the  elaborate 
and  able  argument  of  the  counsel  who  has  just  pre- 
ceded me  was  founded  with  the  utmost  ingenuity 
and  ability — not  upon  the  evidence  in  this  case,  but  it 
is  based  upoa  t.'iat  strange  opening  with  which  you  were  ^ 
entertained,  at  the  opening  of  this  case  for  the* defense. 
1  will  barely  remark  that  I  presume  you  will  try  thia 
cause  upon  the  evicence — that  I  believe  is  the  nature 
of  your  oath;  and  not  upon  tlie  opening- of  counsel, 
or  uj  on  the  argument  of  counsel,  based  upon  that 
opening,  and  framed/  upon  it,  altogether.  You  are  to 
try  the  caute  upon  the  Jat  te  in  the  case,  and  upon  the 
constructions  of  law"  which  the  Court  shall  announce 
to  you  from  the  Bench. 

Why,  gentlemen,  strange  things  have  taken  place 
upon  this  trial.    The  Court  upon  solemn  argument, 
and  after  the  counsel  who  opened  the  case  had  expended 
three  or  four  arguments — the  Court  deliberately  de- 
!  cided  two  })ropositions.    First :  That  tliis  article  in 
I  The  N.  Y.  Trihune  of  the  2Gth  of  September,  the 
;  one  uion  which  the  suit  is  brought,  was  j^cr.-^c  libelous; 
I  that  it  imported  to  charge  the  plaintiff  with  personal 
I  corruption;  and  the  Couit  as  deliberately  decided 
I  another  question — in  the  second  place,  that  the  article 
1  was  not  a  privileged  one,  and  must  be  eustained  by  a 
]  proper  justiticai ion,  or  if  not  sustained,  the  punishment 
i  to  be  inflicted  upon  the  lit;eler  is  to  be  mitigated  by 
!  such  mitigating  circumstances  as  are  set  forth  in  the 
}  ]  St  and  5th  answers.    Yet,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  an 
;  appeal  was  directly  taken  bv  the  counsel  who  summed 
up  this  case,  and  again  this  question  was  solemnly 
^  argued  and  adjudirated  upon,  and  the  jirior  decision  of 
I  the  Court  su.-tained  !    And  yet  again,  in  the  face  of  all 
this,  it  has  been  urged  upon  you,  in  the  closing  argu- 
ment of  the  counsel,  hour  alter  hour,  that  thid  article 


43 


IS  not  libelous  iu  its  character,  and  that  this  is  one  of 
the  quefctions  now  open  for  you  to  dtcide  !    As  I  have 
already  said,  you  have  your  approiuii.te  duty  to  per- 
lorm,  I  have  mine,  and  the  Court  has  his;  and  it  is 
upon  the  faithful  penormance,  by  each  of  us,  of  the 
duties  respectively  belonging  to  us  tbat  justice  can  be 
obtained,  and  proi  er  results  arrived  at.    The  great 
beauty  and  faruiony  of  om-  system  of  juiisprudence  is,  ! 
that  it  leaves  fj^uestions  of 'law  to  the  Court,  who  : 
lias  made  that  science  the  study  of  his  life,  and  who  is 
responsible  for  the  faithful  periormance  of  that  duty.  | 
But  even  if  the  Court  makes  a  ndstake  and  a  party  is  i 
injured  in  consequence,  he  has  his  remedy  by  au  ap- 1 
peal  to  a  higher  Court  to  have  the  case  again  adju- i 
dicatfd  upon;  and  if  need  be  it  can  be  cariied  to  the  I 
Court  of  Appeal.-',  the  Court  of  l<tst  resort.    And  under  ! 

/  this  system  the  Jury  has  as  its  proper  province  to 
weigh  the  credibility  of  witnesses  and  to  determine, 
upon  what  they  say,  what  are  the  true  facts  in  the 
ca=e,  and  then  to  apply  these  facts  under  tbe  rules  of 
law  which  the  Court  lays  down.  Thus  there  is  no 
difficulty  in  arriving  at  a  correct  result,  and  if  any 
mistakes  are  ccmojiited  they  can  be  corrected  there- 
after. But  suppose  that,  iu" defiance  of  the  charge  of 
the  Court  to  the  Jujy,  the  Juiy  should  say  that  they 
are  belter  lawyers  than  his  Honor,  and  should  over-  , 
lide  his  rulings,  and  find  a  verdict  inconsistent  with 
the  facts  aid  with  the  Judge's  theory  of  the  law! 
There  could  be  no  redress  obtained,  because  there 

)  -would  be  a  proper  ruling  of  the  question  to  the  Jury, 
of  which  we  could  take  no  advantage  on  either  side. 
Hence  you  see,  gentlemen,  the  strong  necessity  that 
each  department  of  the  Court  should  {  erform  its  own 
functions  alone,  aid  leave  the  other  departments  to  be 
performed  by  them  severally  iu  accordance  with  their 
duty.  I  do  not  make  these  remarks  because  I  fear 
that  you  will  assurce  the  province  of  the  Court  at  all, 
but  on  account  of  the  strange  arguments  which  have 
been  addressed  to  you,  telling  you  that,  in  ttFect,  you 
are  the  judges  of  the  law  as  you  are  of  the  facts.  That 
is  a  gross  mi?take.  The  counsel  have  not  told  you  so 
in  plain  words — they  would  not  like  to  do  that — but 
they  have  done  so  in  substance,  by  telling  you  that  it 
is  your  duty  to  find  what  is  the  character  of  this  paper 
of  the  2Gth  of  September,  notwithstanding  the  Court 
^  has  decided  that  it  is  libelous  per  se — that  is,  showing 
that  it  is  upon  its  face  libelous,  and  charges  the 
plaintiff  with  corruption. 

Kow,  gentlemen,  the  words  of  publication  in  The 
Tribune  are  as  follows: 

"  A  correspondent  earnestly  inquires  our  opinion  concerning 
the  nomination  for  members  of  tbe  Legislature  of  D.  C.  Little- 
john,  at  Oswego,  and  Austin  Myers,  at  Syracuse.  On  this  sub- 
ject our  opi  ion  Las  been  so  ofieu  expressed  that  it  cannot  be  in 
doubt.  Both  these  persons  were  prominent  in  the  corrupt  leg- 
islation of  last  Winter." 

"  Prominent  in  the  corrupt  legislation  !  "  Prominent 
in  forwarding  legislation  which  was  corrupt  ?  2S"o; 
by  no  means.  But  "  Promiuent  iu  the  corrupt  legisla- 
tion^'' showing  inevitably  that  the  writer  of  the  arti- 
cle intended  it  to  imply  that  they  were  foremost  of  the 
corrupt  ones  in  the  corrupt  legislation  alluded  to. 

"  Accordingly,  both  of  them  ought  now  to  be  defeated." 

Why  should  they  be  defeated,  if  their  motives  were 
honest,  although  others  who  were  acting  in  that  leg- 
islation were  corrupt  ?  If  Mr.  L  ttlejohn  were  a  man 
of  the  abilities  which  they  concede  to  him,  because  tie 
happened  to  vote  on  the  same  side  with  men  who  hap- 
pened to  be  corrupt,  on  the  passage  of  a  bill,  does  that 
prevent  him  from  being  a  legislator  ? 

"  Or,  if  they  must  be  sent  back  to  pursue  their  career  at 
Albany,"   ( 

Now,  what  is  the  meaning  of  that  word  "  career  "  1 
Was  it  an  honent  career  1  Was  it  a  mistaken  career  ? 
Or  was  it  a  corrvpt  career  ?  To  which  of  these  terms 
does  the  word  "  career"  inevitably  apply  ?  What  is 
its  ireaning  if  it  does  not  apply  to  this  corrupt  career  ? 
These  same  bills  are  not  to  be  repeated  at  the  next  ses 


sion;  but  the  implication  is,  that  they  are  not  to  be 
sent  back  to  continue  this  career  of  corruption,  which 
attended  the  legislation  of  1860. 

"  it  should  not  be  the  work  of  Republican  voters." 

Xow  gentlemen, it  is  of  little  consequence  to  ushereto 
which  political  party  the  jdaint  iff  or  the  defendant  be- 
longed. .We  do  not  tit  here  as  politicians,  we  sit  here  to 
investigate  the  facts  of  this  case,  and  to  determine  upon 
them  according  as  the  evidence  shall  show.  We  do 
not  sit  here  to  favor  one  set  of  men  or  another;  one 
class  of  parties  or  another.  But  even  if  we  did,  this 
legisltitiou  of  1860,  be  it  what  it  may,  and  the  legisla- 
tion with  regard  to  these  particular  acts  which  have 
been  specified  in  the  answer  set  up  in  this  case,  was 
participuted  in  by  both  side?,  and  by  members  of  both, 
political  parties;' and  a  large  majority  of  each  political 
party  supported  these  measures.  There  are  no  reasons, 
therefore,  why  any  man  through  prejudice  to  those  of  an 
opposite  party,  should  swerve  one  iota  from  the  proper 
discharge  of  his  duty  here.  If  the  Republicans  of  that 
Legislatuie  are  corrupt  because  they  passed  these  acts, 
then  the  Democrats  of  that  Legislature  are  also  cor- 
rupt, because  they  united  with  them,  and  the  votes 
show  that  a  majority  of  both  political  parlies  participa- 
ted in  the  votes  in  favor  of  these  bills. 

I  shall  speak  no  more  upon  the  question  whether  this 
article  is  libelous  or  not ;  I  shall  leave  the  Court  to 
protect  itself,  if  any  protection  is  necessary,  against 
the  appeal  from  its  decision  to  you.    I  have  no  doubt 
but  that  as  Lis  Honor  shall  charge  you  in  this  respect, 
so  you  will  find.    It  is  the  province  of  the  Court  to  de- 
cide whether  upon  its  face  *tiis  article  is  libelous  ov 
not,  and  it  is  the  province  of  the  Court  to  decide 
whether  upon  the  face  of  this  whole  article  it  is  a  priv- 
ileged one;  taking  into  account  the  fact  that  the  de- 
fendant is  the  editor  and  publisher  of  a  paper and 
;  upoii^ these  two  points  the  Court  has  solemnly  decided, 
and  1  trust  that  from  that  decision  there  is  no  appeal 
until  after  this  trial  is  closed;  and  then  if  the  counsel 
think  that  wrong  has  bfron  done,  they  can  appeal  to  a 
higher  tribunal  and  correct  the  mistake,  if  any  has 
I  been  committed.    I  shall  assume,  therefore,  for  the 
purposes  of  this  case,  that  this  article  is  libelous;  and 
my  next  proposition  is,  that  being  libelous,  and  not 
:  proved  to  be  true,  the  law  infers  malice,  and  thatinfer- 
'.  ence  is  not  to  be  refuted  by  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Gree- 
1  ley  himself,  merely  giving  what  his  opinions  and  his 
'  views  were  of  the  motives  which  actuated  its  publica- 
j  tion.    We  have  bad  this  strange  doctiiue  promulgated 
here,  that  by  reading  other  articles  from  The  Tribuxe 
in  this  case,  we  have  taken  them  as  our  testimony,  and 
taken  them  to  be  true.    Why,  gentlemen,  if  this  were 
not  iu  a  court  of  justice,  and  if  this  was  not  a  grave 
!  question  between  two  citizens  of  standing  and  charac- 
'  ter,  this  would  be  farcical  to  the  utmost  extent.  Upon 
!  the  same  theory,  the  reading  of  the  arii.  le  itself  on  our 
i  p-^rt  would  be  taken  as  evidence  of  its  truth.  These 
i  other  articles  were  admissable  only  for  one  single  piir- 
I  pose:  for  tbe  purpose  of  showing  the  intent  with  which 
the  defendant  made  these  charges.    They  are  given  in 
evidence  to  characterize  that  intent, -and  to  show  if  he 
was  actuated  by  express  malice  or  not.  They  are  given 
in  evidence,  legally" given  in  evidence,  with  the  appro- 
bation of  the  Court,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that 
these  personal  attacks  and  charges  were  continued  by 
the  defendant.    He  did  not  rest  upon  or^e  article,  the 
article  in  quesiion  here;  but  he  preceded  it  by  one  of 
the  11th  of  September,  in  which  he  made  a  charge  as 
outrageous,  against  all  who  voted  for  these  bill?,  as  he 
made  against  this  plaintiff;  although  in  this  article  it  is 
not  equally  made  by  name,  except  to  place  the  name 
in  the  list  "of  those  who  voted  for  certain  bills.  He  com- 
menced them  before  Mr.  Littlejohn  was  nominated; 
but  he  commenced  them  doubtless  when  he  expected 
that  he  M  ould  be  noniinated.    This  first  article  was 
promulgated  in  The  TKUiUNE  on  the  Uth  of  Septem- 
i.er,  1860;  and  on  the  I'Jth  of  the  same  mouth  the  con- 


44 


Ptitnentfj  of  >[r.  Litth-john  rr-nominated  liini  r.naiii- 
iiioiifly  to  rei'i-fsent  lliem  in  I  lie  Ashtuibly.  l)id  he 
eto)>  tliere  Uti  the  Sih  of  (ktohcr.  or  before  that 
time,  he  rereived  a  leitt-r  from  Mr.  Liitlejohn,  not  jihk- 
iiiff  tliut  it  Khould  be  puhlit^hed,  hut  a  letter  denying  in 
the  most  solemn  manuei  any  luirtiiipation  in  any  tor- 
nij't  k'f^itilation  of  nny  desciiption,  and  calling*  npon 
him,  a.-*  one  man  hat*  a  r  glit  to  call  upon  another  whom 
he  thinks  has  dono  liim  an  injiitiiiie,  to  review  i  is  course 
and  ^ee  whether  it  does  not  beioii.e  him  to  make  t-ome 
reparation  in  the  wav  of  recantation  or  exjdanatiuu.  But 
tohis  utter  furpiise, lie  llndstliat  Ictterin  I'hk  Tkiulxk 
u  few  daya  altt-rward,  aiTomi^iinitd  w  ith  comment-', 
over  the  signature,  tlie  iniiialaof  Horace  Greeley,  "  II. 
G..  '  wliich  were  more  ollensive  than  the  other  lihcl. 

yiT.  Wm-liams — Ibiit  paper  has  not  been  put  iu  e\i- 
deuoe  at  all. 

Mr.  Skdgwick — We  proved  by  Mr.  Greeley  that  he 
published  Hueh  an  article. 

Mr.  Fo^TKK — This  is  on  a  question  of  malice,  and 
we  prove  by  him  that  he  published  tluit  letter ;  that 
be  ^^ubli^hed  it  with  comments  over  bis  own  initials, 
taking  two  occasions  to  follow  up  Mr.  Litflejohn,  who 
bad  iu  a  friendly  manner  wiitteu  him  a  letter  not  in- 
tended for  publication. 

Mr.  Williams  iueisted  that  the  letter  was  not  in  ev- 
idence. 

31r.  Foster — Nobody  claims  that  the  contents  are 
in  evidence;  we  claim  that  he  admitted  the  receipt  of 
such  a  letter,  and  jiuldished  it  in  Thk  Tkibl  .ve.  If 
those  comments  were  just  and  proper,  it  was  bis  duty 
to  have  put  them  in  evidence. 

Mr.  PoKTEK — I  Hin  very  reluctant  to  interfere  with 
couneel,  but  I  trust  vour  Honor  will  say  to  the  Jury 
that  we  have  not  the  right  to  give  iu  evidence  the 
declarations  of  Horace  Greeley. 

Mr.  Foi^TKK — Tiiey  had  a  perfect  right  to  introduce 
the  letter  of  Mr.  Littlejohn  to  Horace  Greeley,  and  his 
respouhe  to  it. 

Mr.  Williams — Could  we  introduce  the  paper  ? 

Mr.  FosTKK — You  could  introduce  the  letter  and  the 
paper.  Well,  on  the  2Gth  of  November  Horace  Greeley 
Avritee  a  letter  to  Mr.  Littlejohn  in  reference  to  an  ar- 
ticle which  he  had  publislied  on  the  2'-Sd  of  October — 
an  article  in  which  he  admits  that  be  charged  upon 
bira  iu  substance,  with  baviijg  been  indicted  in  a 
neitfbboriug  State  for  crime. 

Mr.  PuKTEii  submitted  that  they  were  not  at  liberty 
to  use  a  paper  w  ich  was  not  in  evidence. 

The  CoL  KT  said  the  letter  had  been  pur,  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Foster — It  seemt^  from  this  letter  itself  that 
previous  to  this  time,  and  after  the  otlier  publication  to 
which  I  have  alluded,  Horace  Greeley  taw  fit  to  charge 
the  plaintiirwitb  h  iving  been  indicted  in  a  foreign  State 
fur  crime.  He  i>rofe>>j-es  in  this  letter  to  have  ol)taiiied 
theinlorniation — which  l.e  admits  wasinacc  uiate — from 
Mayor  Weniworth  of  Chica.ao,  and  yet  be  swore  on 
the  stand  that  he  had  not  eetn  Mayor  Wentwurtb  for 
a  long  time,  and  that  he  obtained  the  information  which 
he  had  iu  the  Fall  of  1S.J>^,  and  even  then  he  did  not 
obtain  infornihtiou  from  Mr.  Wei.tworth;  that  the  in- 
dictment was  against  the  plaintirt  in  this  case.  But  he 
left  you  to  suppose  from  his  tet-timony  on  the  stand, 
till  we  cross-examined  him.  that  Mayor  Wentworth 
had  corrected  his  mis'ake,  and  iu  consequence  of  the 
correction  of  Mnyor  Wentworth,  w^hy,  he  was  willing 
to  correct  the  mistake  under  certaiu  circunihtances,  yet, 
I  say,  it  turned  out  on  the  cross-examiudtion  that  he 
had  not  teen  Ma^'or  Wentworth  in  the  meantime,  from 
the  time  this  article  was  published  till  the  time  he  was 
applied  to  for  a  retraction  of  it,  and  that  is  the  ^^tioblt 
letter."  It  is  a  scandalous  letter,  degrading  to  any 
man  of  character  who  would  wriie  it — uWrly  de- 
grading— I  care  not  who  he  is,  or  what  he  is,  or  what 
his  pretensions  are  ' — utterly  degrading  to  him  as  a  man 
of  honor  !  And  if  I  wanted  to  show  that  Horace  Gree- 
ley was  steeped  in  malice  toward  Mr.  Litth-john,  he 
has  furnished  the  most  irrefragable  evidence  of  it  in 
this  letter.    He  has  Slated  on  his  oath  that  be  never 


had  information  that  De  Witt  C.  Littlejohn  had  beeii 
indii  ted,  or  that  a  requitt  tion  had  been  uiade  by  the 
(ioveinor  of  another  State  on  the  (Jovernor  of  this 
State  for  his  rendition  as  a  fugitive  from  justice.  Yet 
when  called  upon  in  manly  terms  to  correct  tlie  ern)r 
— I  will  do  so,  he  says,  upon  tin;  condition  that  you 
will  con.-ent  that  I  shall  slander  Mr.  Fitzhnj:!),  one  of 
the  most  honorable  nien  iu  ibis  country.  W  hat  nrason 
on  earth  was  there  why  Horace  Greeh'y  should  not  say 
iu  his  pai  er:  "  I  was'mistaken  in  the  article  charging 
3Ir.  Littlejohn  Avith  having  been  indicted;  it  was 
founded  ujiou  a  mistake,  and  I  withdraw  the  charge." 
What  right  had  be  to  impose  upon  Mr,  J^ittlejohn  that 
be  should  be  a  wi  h  him  in  an  assault  upon  his 

friend,  iMr.  Fit/.hiigh  ?  Is  that  the  way  to  do  a  man  , 
justice  and  repair  an  injury  to  him  He  calls  Mr. 
Fitzhugh  his  (they  have  it  brother-in-law;  tliej  have 
copied  it  wrong,)'fat^ler-in-law^  That  shows  a<iam  how 
reckless  and  careless  he  isiu  bis  statenients,  as  well  as 
iu  his  letters  and  in  his  articles  in  The  Tkiblne. 
We  all  know  there  is  not  the  slightest  relationship  or 
connection  between  them,  except  that  of  business. 
And  if  I  am  assailed  by  a  libeler,  and  when  I  satisfy 
him,  and  he  is  satislied  "iiimself  that  he  has  libeled  me, 
am  1  to  get  justice  done  me  upon  condition  that  I  will 
consent,  and  that  I  will  be  a  party  to  nis  assault  upon 
my  father-in-law,  or  my  w  ife,  or  my  child  \  Why, 
gentlemen,  it  is  the  lirst  law  of  human  nature,  so  far 
as  human  nature  is  high  and  honorable,  to  repair  an 
injury  which  has  been  done.  Tell  me,  gentlemen, 
what' obstacle  was  in  the  way  of  Mr.  Greeley's  say- 
ing in  his  paper:  ''We  were  mistaken  wiien  we 
charged  in  the  article  on  such  a  day  that  Mr.  Little- 
john had  been  indicted  in  Illinois,  or  that  Gov.  Bissell 
of  that  State  had  issued  a  reciuisitiou  for  him  upon 
Gov.  King  of  this  State."  Tell  me  what  earthly  reason 
was  there  why  no  just  retraction  should  be  made,  and 
why  Mr.  Greeley  should  insist  upon  the  conaiiion  that 
he  should  have  Mr.  Littlejohn's  consent  to  utter  foul 
and  infamous  assHuli 8  ajiainst  another  man  who  was 
his  neighbor  and  bis  friend  /  Now,  gentlemen,  all  this 
j)retext  that  Mr.  Fitzhugh  was  an  intimate  friend  of 
Mr.  Greeley's  is  mere  pretense;  there  is  no  intimacy 

'  between  them,  and  never  was.  And  such  is  the  case, 
and  has  always  been,  between  Mr.  Littlejohn  and  M  7- 

I  Greeley.    Tliey  have  belonged  to  the  same  politica 

I  party,  but  they  have  had  no  intimacy.    We  "deny  it 

.  enjpjjatically,  nor  can  Mr.  Greeley  etate  the  time  that 
Mr.  Littlejohn,  when  in  New-York,  ever  called  at  his 

I  office  to  see  him.    We  deny  the  intimacy.    We  don't 

!  mean  to  say  that  they  were  on  bad  personal  terms;  but 

:  we  say  this,  iu  answer  to  all  this  talk  about  their  being 
intimate  friends.  They  belonged  to  what  has  long  ex- 
isted as  different  interests  in  the  same  party,  and  each 
knew  the  jihice,  with  reference  to  those  divisions,  iu 
which  he  stood  and  in  which  the  other  stood. 

I     But  there  may  be  some  motive  for  assailing  Mr. 

I  Littlejohn.  Mr.  Littlejohn  has  occupied,  prior  to  these 
assaults  upon  him,  a  very  high  and  honorable  position 
among  the  men  of  talent  -.and  iutelligence  in  this  coun- 
ty, and  all  over  this  State.  No  man  has  been  Speaker 
of  the  Legislature  for  a  great  many  years  so  many 
times  as  he;  no  man  has  been  more  heartily  supported 
by  his  constituents  than  he  has;  and  until  these  charges 
were  made  against  him,  his  private  character  was 
without  a  blemish.  He  had  been  unfortunate  in  busi- 
ness, and  who  has  not?  Who  could  say  he  could 
ride  out  the  storms  of  L^57  in  safety  ?  Who  could  lie 
down  at  night  in  the  Autumn  of  that  year  with  the 
full  as:-urauce  that  he  could  wake  up  bolvent  the  next 
morning — especially  if  he  were  engaged  largely  in  the 
purchase  of  grain  ?  Men  can  bear  tbeir  providential 
mi.-fortunes,  because  they  come  from  a  hand  that  is 

1  always  filled  to  ttie  hist  and  to  the  end  with  kindness. 

'  But  that  is  enougb  without  being  assailed  by  ruthless 
libelers  and  having  their  character  destroyed ;  and  at 
the  very  time,  too,  when  they  most  need  it;  when  all 

,  their  eaVthlv  substance  is  swept  away  from  them. 

!     [The  Court  here  took  a  recess  till  the  afternoon.] 


45 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 
MR.  FOSTER  RESUMED. 

I  wap  coramenting,  gentlemen,  on  this  letter  of  the 
26ih  of  November.  "  It  says: 

"  Office  op  The  Tribune.  ? 
"  Nkw-Yokk,Nov.  26,  1860.  5 

"  Gextlemex:  I  have  5'out  ]etfer  of  ilie  24th  this  moment. 

"  A  simple  allnsion  to  Mr.  Littlejohn  in  Thk  Tribtxe  occurs 
to  me  as  having  given  warrant  for  your  demand.  _  It  was  that  in 
which  I  spoke  of  his  having  been  wanted  in  Illinois.  My  au- 
thority for  that  statement  is  John  Wentworth,  Mayor  of  Chi 
cage  ;  but  it  now  occurs  to  me  that  the  requisition  of  Gov.  Bissell 
ou  Gov.  King  was  for  Mr.  Fitzhugh,  th«  father-in-law  and  busi- 
ness partner  of  Mr.  Littlejohn,  not  for  Mr.  L.  himself," 

And  what  diflPerence  could  it  make,  I  ask,  whether 
Mr.  Fitzhugh  was  Mr.  Littlejohu's  partner  in  reference 

'  to  whether  he  should  do  justice  to  Mr,  Littlejohn  or 
not  in  retracting  the  article  he  had  publisbed.  H^d  he 
any  right  to  claim  that  Mr.  Littlejohn  should  consent 
that  he  might  assail  Mr.  Fitzhugh  before  he  would 
consent  to  do  justice  to  Mr.  Littlejohn  '/  And  yet  the 
counsel  puts  this  forward  as  a  case  of  great  promptitude 
and  willingness  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Greeley  to  do  Mr. 
Littlejohn  justice,  and  to  my  utter  surprise,  to  verify 
the  position  of  Mr,  Gree'ey  ,  he  tells  us  that  one  partner 
is  answerable  for  the  acts  of  another.  In  acerttun  sense, 
gentlemen,  he  is.  If  one  of  two  partners  makes  a  con- 
tract, the  other  co-partner  is  bound  pecuniarily  for  the 
performance  of  the  contract  on  the  part  of  the  co-part- 

\    nership.  But  where  on  earth ,  except  at  Albany,  is  it  held 
that  one  co-partner  is  liable  for  the  indictments  of  an- 
other ?   Where  on  earth  else  is  it  heard  of,  that  you 
have  a  right  to  slander  one  co-partner  for  acts  charged 
— though  they  be  not  criminal — ou  another,  without 
any  participation  in  them  in  the  slightest  degree  ?  i 
adding  insult  to  injury !    When  a  man  asks  for  redress  ' 
from  a  faLse  charge,  then  to  turn  around  and  insist 
that  be  must  consent  to  let  his  co-partner  be  assailed  !  | 
And  this  is  high-minded  and  honorable  conduct  on  the  { 
part  of  the  principal  editor  of  the  Union. 

though  I  understand  and  believe  that  it  was  ou  account  of 
partnership  transactioES."  j 

Well,  suppose  it  was  ?  I  take  it  if  the  people  of 
Illinois  had  a  compl-iint  to  make  against  Mr.  Little- 
john for  any  conduct  of  his  they  would  indict  hioi  for 
it,  and  not  indict  Mr.  Fitzhugh  alone.  I  deny  that 
there  is  any  principle  that  imputes  to  one  man  the 
crimes  of  another."  It  is  enough  for  us  that  we  have 
to  bear  our  own  infirmities,  and  the  responsibilities  of 
our  own  acts;  and  no  man  has  any  right  to  throw  any 
greater  load  upon  us  than  that  which  it  is  our  duty  to 
bear.  It  shows  the  recklessness  with  which  shafts  are 
aimed  from  that  almost  all-controlling  press.  It  shows 
how  careless  they  are  in  their  statements,  and  how 
they  scatter  broadcast  over  the  land  insinuations 
against  the  character  of  men  who  ditter  with  them.  I 
concede  to  the  editor  of  that  paper  talents  of  a  very 
high  order;  I  concede  that  in  the  main  he  is  an  honest 
man;  but  I  have  a  right  to  assert,  however,  that  he  is 
utterly  impracticable  when  brought  into  connection 
with  any  body  else,  that  he  knows  no  such  thing  as 
molding  opinion  by  opinion,  that  he  knows  no  such 
thing  as  being  influenced  at  all  by  the  opinions  or 
knowledge  of  any  other  man — he  is  utterly  impracti- 
cable, wedded  to  his  own  sophistries  and  dogmas  en- 
tirely. 

"If  Mr.  Littlejohn  desires  that  I  shall  ascertain  and  publish 
the  exact  facts  in  the  case,  1  will  gladly  do  so." 

What  has  Mr.  Littlejohn  to  do  with  the  facts  in  the 
case  ?  How  is  He  connected  with  them  ?  Why  was 
he  to  be  asked  to  consent  to  a  publication  of  the  exact 
facts,  as  long  as  they  did  not  regard  him  or  affect  him 
in  any  way  ?  Why  should  he  be  mixed  up  in  this 
matter  in  any  shape,  so  long  as  it  is  conceded  that  the 
charge  never  emanated  from  Mr.  Wentworth  against 
him  at  all  ?  Why  should  such  claims  be  insi&ted  on  by 
an  honorable  man,  who  claims  to  be  honorable  among 


I  his  neighbors  ?   The  only  principle  I  know  of,  is — 
'  that  ample  justice  should  be  done  for  the  wrong;  and 
then  let  the  wrong-doer  look  about  to  see  if  any  other 
person  is  properly  subject  to  his  assaults — but  let  him 
be  just  first!    Do  justice  unqualifiedly  and  without 
condition.    He  who  denies  the  right  of  his  neighbor  to 
!  unqualified  and  unconditional  redress  is  unworthy  the 
I  f-ituation  that  enables  him  to  wield  the  terrible  power 
of  such  a  press  as  that. 

"  I  have  hesitated  hitherto,  because  Mr.  Fitzhugh  is  not  in  pub- 
I  lie  life,  is  an  old  man,  for  whom  1  have  the  kinde4t  regard,  and 
<  whom  I  do  not  wish  to  drag  before  the  public  in  any  uupleasaut 
I  connection." 

!  Then  why  does  he  want  the  assistance  and  consent 
!  of  Mr.  Littlejohn  to  drag  him  before  the  public  ?  And 
j  why  does  he  make  it  a  condition  upon  which  alone  he 
!  will  do  justice  to  Mr.  Littlejohn,  when  he  confesses 
I  that  he  never  had  a  syllable  of  information  against 
j  him,  from  any  person  in  the  world  ? 

I  "  Still,  if  Mr.  Littlejohn  desires  a  correction  of  this  statement 
'  made,  I  will  do  it  cheerfully,  and  in  exact  accordance  with  the 
j  facts." 

No  fact  is  material  to  Mr.  Littlejohn  except  one — 
that  he  is  not  the  party  who  has  been  indirted  in  Illi- 
nois, and  for  whom  a  requisition  has  been  sent  by 
Gov.  Bissell  to  Gov.  King.  What  else  has  he  to  do 
with  it  'I.  He  confesses  here  that  there  was  no  indict- 
ment against  him  and  no  requi.sition  for  him.  Then 
why  not  say  so  like  a  man,  and  place  his  columns  in  a 
position  to  "be  entitled  to  credit  when  they  shall  assail 
some  other  man  ?  But  the  honoraole  man  is  willing 
to  do  more.  He  is  willing  to  take  back  the  lihel  he 
has  uttered  on  being  satii^Jieil  !  Mr.  Littlejohn  com- 
plained that  he  had  been  assailed  in  the  article  for 
which  this  suit  is  brought;  he  complained  in  this  let- 
ter of  the  24th  November,  long  before  the  suit  was 
brought,  with  a  view  to  avoid  litigation — desiring  not 
the  money  of  Mr.  Greeley  at  all,  but  desiring  to  have 
his  fair  fame  vindicated  from  the  unjust  aspersions  cast 
upon  it. 

"As  to  all  other  matters  which  Mr.  L.  may  have  to  complain 
of,  I  have  only  to  say  that  I  shall  very  gladly  correct  any  mis- 
representation 1  have  made  that  may  be  shown  to  me  to  be 
such." 

Why,  the  editor  of  The  Tribune  not  only  holds  a 
position  from  which  he  can  assail  all  mankind — 
according  to  the  doctrine  of  his  counsel — with  impu- 
nity, but  he  holds  a  Cuiirt — a  Court,  too,  unknown  to 
the  laws  of  this  State — and  a  judicatory  of  his  own, 
at  which  he  insists  that  those  who  have  been  injured 
by  his  conduct  shall  come,  and  show  }iim  that  they 
have  been  wronged — he,  whose  duty  it  is  to  inquire, 
before  he  wrongs  them,  whether  he  is  doing  a  wrong; 
then,  when  they  claim  that  he  has  wronged  them,  he 
very  quietly  asks  them  to  come  and  cool  their  heels  in 
his  antechamber,  until  he  shall  have  leisure  to  examine 
into  the  truth  or  falsity  of  these  accusations  which  he 
has  made  ?  Do  you  believe  in  such  arrogance  as  that  ? 
Ate  you  williug'to  bow  to  the  influence  of  a  press  that 
issues  editions  of  250,000,  and  to  concede  for  a  moment 
that  those  assailed  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of 
this  broad  country,  and  among  the  nations  of  Europe, 
can  only  obtain'  redress,  no  matter  how  clear 
their  claim  may  be,  until  they  come  into  the  presence 
of  this  august  'traducer,  and 'satisfy  him  that  he  is 
wrong?  Submit  to  sucli  things,  if  you  will.  I  will 
be  no  participator  in  any  such  fawning  sycophancy 
and  degradation  as  that ! 

"  But  I  cannot  change  my  opiniocs  •with  regard  to  much  of  the 
legislation  of  last  Winter,  whereof  Mr.  Littlejohn  was  a  promi- 
nent advocate.  I  consider  that  legislation  every  way  wrong, 
unjustiKable,  and  corrupt ;  and,  while  I  do  not  know  that  Mr. 
L.  received  any  money  for  his  share  iu  it,  I  deem  it  of  such  a 
character  that  it  would  be  no  less  objectionable  to  my  mind  if  I 
were  convinced  that  he  bore  his  part  ia  it  without  hope  or 
exj.'ectation  of  reward." 

He  goes  on  to  set  up  his  opinions  of  the  legislation 
of  that  Winter.  It  is  not  a  quebtion  of  opinion,  gen- 
tlemen ;  it  is  a  question  whether  in  truth  and  fact  his 


4G 


charges  agninet  Mr.  Llttlejolm  are  true.  That  is  the  ,  known  to  favor  and  to  be  in  favor  of  mid  acts,  and  of  the  passage 
(luentiou.    Tlie  opinions  ol  Mr.  Greeley  may  be  entt-r-  i  tliereof  resper  tiviiy. 

tallied  upon  a  wrony:  loundatioii,  as  tliot^e  of  any  other  '    "  "a**!  "cts  the  said  defendant  sayH  that  at  the 


human  W: 


,,,,,       11^;    .,  »  ,i„      .1      '  r      •.•     '    c\       '  " 'he  BHHie  was  puKHed  and  was  go  voted  lor  hv  the  said 

iniS.      He  18  tiot  above  the  lufu  niUieK  Ot  hu-  ;  pIui.UiH.  the  same  was  eUr  .ince  hath  been  and  Htill  i.  of  a 
man  nature.      lie  lliis  no  inlalJlbuity,  UUKhs  presiding  t  nature  and  tendency  highly  prejudical  to  tlie  interentH  and  wel- 

Avfiich  insues  editions    f'^^e  of  the  people  of  this  State;  that  at  the  time  when  he,  the 


-         .      .  ,  A  direct  char/,'e  of  corruption;  and  lie  voted  for  them 

r  all  Ills  in(|uny  about  this  matter,  he  hiis  not  yet ;  believing  and  knowing  that  they  had  this  tendency  for 
id  out  but  Mr.  Fitzhugh  is  .Mr.  Littlejohn'H  father-  evil. 


over  the  coUimnB  of  a  newspaper 
of 'J.'jOjOOO  raises  his  character  and  ^ives  hiui  attributes 
which  do  not  l|elong  to  humanity  at  large.  Certainly 
his  jiaper  is  evidence  that  he  is  not  above  erior,  for 
afte 
fouu 

in  law,  lie  is  willing  to  commute  if  Mr.  Littlejoh 
^Yill  consent  that  a  man  whom  he  calls  his  father-in- 
law  is  the  guilty  person,  and  that  it  was  in  regard  to 
partnership  transactions. 

"  If  you  will  point  out  to  iv.e  the  averments  in  TiiR  Tkiri-ne 
that  Mr.  L.  demands  should  he  retracted  or  corrected,  I  will  do 
whatever  aeeniB  to  me  just,  but  no  more,  because  Mr.  L.  threat- 
ens me  with  a  libel-suit.  Indeed,  it  ia  probable  that,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  such  threat,  I  might  be  induced  to  go  further  than  I 
would  otherwise  liave  done.  But,  whether  threatened  or  not,  1 
shall  be  at  all  times  ready  to  undo  any  injustice  I  may  have  com- 
mitted. "  Yours, 

"HORACE  GREELEY. 
"  Messrs.  M.a.ksh  Sc  AVej'.b,  Oswego,  N.  Y." 

Why  does  he  not  say  I  will  do  whatever  is  just  and 
right Wluit  does  it  "mean,  more  or  less,  than  that  "I 
will  do  just  what  I  have  a  mind  to'  about  it,  irre- 
spective of  what  all  the  rest  of  tlie  world  may  think 
with  regard  to  the  truth  of  the  msitter  chdiged",  or  the 
motives  by  whicti  I  am  actuated  in  making  them  ? 
And  that  is  the  ''  noble  letter,"  gentlemen,  in  whicli  a 
freeman  of  your  county  has  been  assailed,  in  the  most 
outrageous  a'nd  nujustiliable  manner,  by  him  who  sits 
at  the  head  of  Thk  TiiinuNE. 

Is  this  article  libelous  ?  Did  Mr.  fJreeley  mean  to 
charge  Mr.  Littlejohn  with  corrupt  motives  ?  Aye;  I  I 
have  it  under  his  own  oath  that  he  end.  My  learned 
friends  have  shirked  his  answer  entirely  in  tlieir  argu- 
ments; they  have  ignored  it  altogether.  Mr.  Little- 
john, when  he  commenced  this  suit,  bej^au  by  iiling  a 
complaint  under  oatb,  and  in  this  oath  he  chai-f^es  tliat 
these  things  are  untrue  and  libelous,  emphatically 
aud  distinctly.  And  l)y  filing  this  complaint  under 
oath,  he  compelled  Mr.  Greeley  to  make  answer,  and 
he  did  so.  1  hold  in  my  hand" a  copy  of  tha*;  answer, 
which  was  served  upon  the  «ttorneys  of  Mr.  Little- 
john by  the  attorney  of  the  defendant.  You  will  bear 
in  mind  that  all  this  answer  is  shut  out  by  the  Court, 
ezcept  the  second  aud  fifth  answers,  one  of  which 
justifies  the  charge  to  its  fullest  extent,  aud  the  other 
states  the  same  facts  in  mitigation  of  damages.  And 
the  changes  have  been  rung" here  by  the  counsel  that 
he  has  not  charged  Mr.  Litiiejolin  fiimself  with  cor- 
ruption, but  that  he  voted  for  these  bills,  whi.h  were 
corrupt;  and  that  he  lias  been  prominent  in  this  cor- 
rupt legislation,  and  that  he  never  meant  to  charge  him 
with  being  corrupt  himself.  We  will  eee  iu  a  moment, 
if  there  is  any  value  in  language,  if  he  has  not  so 
charged  j)im.  'He  has  not  only  denied  him  any  re- 
traction, but  he  has  followed  hini  into  Court  here,"  and 
placed  upon  the  records  of  the  Court  for  all  time,  tliis 
malicious  and  defamatory  charge,  and  put  it  in  the 
broadest  language  which  he  could  find  for  that  purpose. 
Tbe  counsel  have  talked  about,  bribery,  and  have 
called  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  they  have  not 


said  plaintiH,  80  voted  for  the  name,  he,  the  said  plaintiH,  well 
knew  and  fully  believed  such  to  be  the  evil  nature  aud  tendeiu-y 
of  such  act." 


"  And,  as  he  also  well  knew,  was  hound  in  law  and  morals, 
and  by  his  duty  as  such  DiCmber  of  Assembly,  to  vote  against 
the  same." 

Charging  him  with  knowing  that  it  was  his  duty  to 
vote  against  them : 

"  Yet  he,  the  said  plaintiff,  wickedly,  willfully  aud  corruptly 
disregarding  his  said  duty  iu  that  behalf." 

No  personal  charge  here,  my  learned  friend  ? 

Mr.  Wii.LiAM.s — Are  you  trying  us  on  the  answer? 

Mr.  FosTKK — 1  am  trying"  no  motive  now.  I  am 
showing  whether  you  have  furnished  evidence  bv  your 
justification  of  express  malice.  That  is  what 'I  am 
doing,  and  1  trust  I  am  succeeding  with  all  who  can 
listen  and  weigh  ])atiently  our  own  acts  and  doings. 

Mr.  PouTEK — I  ])resume  my  frien^i  does  not  mean  to 
misstate  us;  but  it  is  due  to^us  that  we  should  state 
our  exact  position,  which  he  seems  to  misunderstand. 
1  said  the  artirh'  did  not  charge  liim  with  corru[)tion, 
but  the  complaint  alleged  that  we  did  charge  corrup- 
tion, and  iu  the  answer  we  did  char^^e  it  in  the  broad- 
est form ;  but  we  are  not  prosecuted  on  the  answer,  but 
on  the  article. 

Mr.  Foster — And  there  is  no  principle  by  law  bet- 
ter settled  than  that  when  you  \mi  in  a  charge  in  your 
juetilication;  that  cliarge  on  the  record  is  evidence 
againf-t  you.  But  wliat  a  dilemma  do  they  put  Mr. 
Greeley  in  here;  he  swears  in  his  answer  that  he  did 
mean  to  charge  him  with  corruption. 

"  And  with  the  dishonest  intent  and  purpose  of  working  such 
prejudice  to  the  interests  aud  welfare  of  the  said  people,  and 
sacrificing  the  same  to  advance  the  personal  and  individual  inter- 
ests hereinafter  iu  this  d-='feii8e  fita'eJ,  did  vote  for  such  act  as 
aforesaid;  that  said  plaintiff's  motive  iu  to  willfully  end  cor- 
ruptly voting  for  the  said  first-mentioned  act  was  so  to  advance 
the  personal  aud  individual  interests  ol'  .lames  B.  Taylor  and 
Owen  W.  Brennau,  and  divers  other  persons  interested  therein, 
aud  that  as  to  each  of  tee  oilier  acts  above  mentioned,  his  motive 
iu  so  voting  for  the  same  was  so  to  advance  the  personal  and  in- 
dividual interests  of  the  ptrsous  named  in  tbo  first  section  of 
such  act,  and  of  divers  other  persons  interested  in  said  acts 
respectively,  as  the  defendant  is  informed  and  believes." 

And  yet  it  is  contended  that  he  published  this  article 
with  pure  motives,  and  believing  it  to  be  true.  And 
now  we  have  this  other  and  very  strange  conclusion 
asked  for  by  my  learned  friend — that  the  publisher  of  a 
newspaper,  if  he  chooses  to  step  one  side,  can  allow 
anything  to  appear  in  his  paper,  and  then  shirk  re- 
sponsibility by  coming  into  Court  and  sweat  ing  that 
he  had  no  malice  when  he  published  it.  There  is  no- 
principle  better  settled,  than  tbe  publisher  is  just  as 
guilty  in  such  a  case  as  if  he  had  written  it  himself. 

Bui  the  learned  counsel  who  opened  this  case  jdaced 
editors  on  a  level  with  common  carriers,  and  insisted 
that  they  had  duties  to  perform,  that  they  had  duties 
to  the  piiblic,  and  if  they  even  suspected  wrong  they 
were  bound  to  let  it  be  known ;  if  they  heard  any- 


charged  him  with  tbat.  Bribery  and  corruption  are  !  thing  wrong  they  were  bound  to  tell  it",  and  if  they 
two  cifiierent  things — they  are  not  synonomous  terms.  |  knew  anything  wrong  it  was  their  duty  to  disclose  it. 
There  is  corruption  where  there  is  bribery,  bui;  there  They  should  have  taken  the  other  side  of  a  caniers" 
may  be  corruption  iu  a  dozen  instances  where  there  is  i  duty — a  carrier  is  bound  to  carry  all  the  aiticlesof 


no  bribery.  Well,  in  this  sccnud  answer  he  goes  on  to 
ennumenite  these  four  Kailroad  bills,  and  also  tliis 
bill  in  relation  to  the  West  ^Va6hington  Market,  and 
he  charges  that  they  were  corruptly  ])asEed.  Then  he 
says : 

"  That  the  said  plaintiff,  in  fact,  was  active  and  prominent  in 
said  le-dsla'iou,  to  wit:  as  Speaker  of  the  Baid  House  of  Assem- 
bly, and  otherwise  actively  exerted  himself  in  procuring  the  pas- 
sage of  said  acts  iu  the  said  House  ot  Assembly,  aud  did,  as  a 
member  of  the  said  House,  therein  advocate  aud  vote  for  the  pas- 
sage of  the  same,  publicly  and  privately,  aud  was  generally 


a  carrier 

t  jose  who  choose  to  employ  him.  But  there  ie  another 
principle — he  must  carry  "them  safely,  and  the  law 
holds  him  responsible  for  any  negligence  on  bis  part, 
lie  is  re6})oni-ible  to  the  owner  for  any  less  by  robbery 
or  theft  from  outsiders.  How  would  my  learned 
friend  like  to  have  that  priuriide  applied  here  ?  The 
editor  is  bound,  if  he  stands,  on  a  par  wifli  carriers,  fo 
see  that  his  paper  does  not  traduce  anybody;  he  is 
bound  to  see  that  the  interests  of  indiviiiuils,  as  well 
as  the  public  interests  committed  to  his  charge  (I  don't 


47 


know  who  committed  them,  but  suppose  they  are),  are 
carefully  protected;  and  that  do  man  i:^  allowed  to  be 
demolished  by  the  strong  hammer  of  The  Tkihune  ! 
And  more  especially,  like  the  common  carrier,  shoild 
he  be  bound  not  to  rob  the  packapes  knnsrlf!  Tliis 
man,  who  holds  all  these  public  ard  private  and  indi- 
vidual iuterests  in  his  hand,  should  look  to  it  that  he 
does  not  willfully  damage  them  himself  !  He  must  so 
conduct  all  the  business  that  is  intrusted  to  him  in  this 
mysterious  manner  as  to  have  everything  go  safely  to 
its  destination.  The  common  carrier  is  liable  for  loss 
by  fire;  tire  without  his  fault;  he  is  bound  to  protect 
it  against  all  but  the  acts  of  the  public  enemy,  and  see 
that  all  arrives  safe  and  in  good  condition  at  its  place 
of  destination.  Let  my  learned  friend,  when  he 
assumes  the  rights  of  a  common  carrier,  assume  also 
his  duties,  and  to  especially  not  to  turn  robber  of  pub- 
lic or  private  character  himself.  Gentlemen,  I  want 
to  adopt,  as  a  portion  of  my  argument  upon  this  point, 
the  language  of  one  who  has  had  time  to  condense  his 
thoughts,  and  to  speak  in  a  form  much  more  entitled  to 
credit  before  a  jury,  than  can  he  given  to  a  counsel 
summing  up  a  case  before  a  jury.  It  was  an  action 
for  libel  against  an  editor  of  this  county  for  copying 
from  another  paper  an  article,  and  publishing  it.  [  rhe 
counsel  read  from  2d  Hill,  513,  the  opinion  of  Chief- 
Justice  Nelson.] 

Yes,  before  these  editors  and  publishers  can  claim 
the  exception  which  is  claimed  here,  they  must  get  some 
statute  passed,  which  shall  wipe  out  the  provitions  of 
the  common  case,  and  the  conclusion  of  the  common  law. 
AVhen  that  day  sball  arrive  that  any  free  country  on 
earth  allows  tne  press  to  take  the  private  morals  of  the 
country  into  their  hands  and  in  their  protection,  then 
farewell  to  all  that  is  desirable  in  the  condition  of  man; 
for  no  despotism  would  be  so  galling.  You  cannot  fight 
against  the  press,  you  have  no  standing-place.  What 
can  an  individual  do  against  the  editor  of  The  Trib- 
UXE?  Where  can  he  find  a  place  on  which  to  meet 
his  attacks — and  how  can  he  continue  the  battle  against 
him?  In  such  a  conflict  he  would  be  inevitably 
worsted  so  far  as  appearances  on  paper  are  concerned. 
An  editor  has  all  the  appliances  and  means  to  make 
his  warfare  effectual  and  continued. 

Now,  take  the  idea  if  you  please,  that  Mr.  Greeley 
knew  nothing  of  this  article  until  it  was  published ; 
that  he  had  nothing  to  do  personally  with  having  it 
inserted  in  his  paper;  how  stands  his  answer  which  he 
makes  under  oath,  and  where  he  in  express  terms  ad- 
mits that  he  procured  it  to  be  published  in  his  paper  ? 
Let  the  counsel  reconcile  these  things  if  thi-y  can. 
They  should  have  done  it  as  they  went  along;  iu stead 
of  traveling  out  of  the  case  continually.  In  my  judg- 
ment it  would  have  been  been  better  to  have  been 
stopping  the  weak  places  in  their  case. 

We  think  there  will  be  no  difficulty  in  your  minds, 
gentlemen,  in  the  first  place  that  this  article  is  libelous 
■per  se  ;  that  is,  there  is  enough  here  to  show  that  it 
was  maliciously  published — that  is,  what  tlie  law 
terms  malicious.  And  it  is  no  excuse  for  an  editor  to 
go  on  the  stand  here  and  swear  that  he  had  not  any 
bad  motives  in  having  it  published.  If  he  is  to  be 
believed  here,  he  had  no  motive  at  all,  for  he  did  not 
know  of  it.  And  yet  Mr.  Greeley  is  held  up  by  his 
counsel  as  a  person  who  is  striving  to  purify  tfie  pub- 
lic legislation  of  the  country.  Yet  it  turns  out  here, 
by  his  own  showing,  that  non  constat  he  was  asleep 
when  all  tbis  was  done.  Ah !  he  should  net  have  been 
asleep;  he  should  have  been  wide  awake  and  seeing 
what  was  being  put  into  his  colamns,  day  after  day, 
derogatory  to  the  character  of  individuals.  It  has 
been  decided  repeatedly,  gentlemen  (and  this  case  of 
Hotchkiss  against  Oliphant  decides  it),  that  an  action 
for  libel  against  the  proprietor  of  a  newspaper  edited 
by  another,  though  the  publication  may  be  without 
his  knowledge,  yet  it  is  a  libel  on  his  part,  and  he  is 
liable  to  be  prosecuted;  though  so  far  as  actual  motive 
is  concerned  there  could  have  been  no  bad  motive. 


But  the  law  holds  him  all  the  while  to  keep  his  paper 
under  his  control,  or  under  the  control  of  souie  one 
who  will  see  to  it  that  nothing  libelous  is  permitted 
to  enter  there.  Tbis  article  then  is  libelous ;  there  is 
no  piivilege  on  the  part  of  the  defendant;  and  malice 
i*  shown  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  the  law  re- 
quires it  in  order  to  sustain  the  action. 

Now,  gentlemen,  is  the  lioel  true?  Bear  in  mind 
that  this  cJiuse  in  to  be  tried  upon  the  evidence;  and  I 
beg  you  not  to  forget  that;  if  you  do  you  may  be  led 
astray.  Y''ou  are  not  to  take  the  declaration  of  coun- 
sel; you  are  not  to  take  rumor  with  her  hundred 
thousand  lying  tongues.  You  are  not  to  try  Mr.  Lit- 
tlejolm  by  what  has  been  said  oat  of  doors,  or  what 
has  been  said  here  by  counsel.  There  is  only  one  w^ay 
in  which  the  defendant  can  escape  a  verdict  against 
him;  that  is  by  proving  the  libel  to  be  true,  and  prov- 
ing it  by  testimony,  not  by  declamation,  not  by  reiter- 
ating slander  here  by  the  mouth  of  counsel;  not  by 
reiterating  that  certain  legislation  with  regard  to  the 
City  of  New- York  was  corrupt;  not  by  proving  that 
Mr.  Greeley  believed  it  to  be  corrupt;  not  by  presses 
in  all  parts  of  the  State  charging,  if  you  please,  that 
it  was  corrupt.  That  is  not  evidence  to  satisfy  a  Jury. 
You  are  not  to  decide  this  case  upon  slang  which  has 
been  uttered  here  or  elsewhere.  You  are  not  to  take 
as  part  of  the  testimony  in  this  case,  that  the  West 
Washington  Market  Bill  \vas  corrupt,  because  iu  the 
first  ])lace,  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  it;  and  in  the 
second  place,  it  is  an  utter  untruth;  not  altogether, 
but  the  greatest  part  of  it  is  untrue.  Y^ou  are  not  to 
take  it  for  granted  teat  the  legislation  with  regard  to 
that  law  was  corrupt — the  veto  of  a  Governor  is  no 
evidence  of  corruption  in  the  Legislature,  when  it  has 
discharged  the  duty  as  well  as  the  right  of  two-thirds 
of  the  House  present  when  the  veto  Message  is  re- 
turned, to  pass  that  bill  if  they  approve  of  it  over  that 
veto  of  the  Governor,  a^  it  M'as  originally  passed  by  a 
majority  vote  before  the  veto  was  introduced.  Men 
we  make  Governors  we  don't  make  despots;  we  elect 
a  purely  executive  officer,  having  nothing  whatever 
to  do  w  ith  legislation,  except  by  his  message  to  present 
the  condition  of  the  State,  and  to  recommend  the 
passage  ot  such  laws  as  he  pleases.  But  that  imposes 
no  obligation  upon  either  House  of  the  Legislature  to 
pass  a  single  one  of  the  bills  he  proposes,  or  to  favor 
one  of  the  measures  he  proposes.  He  is  authorized  to 
sign  all  the  bills  which  he  approves  that  are  presented 
to  him  after  having  passed  both  Houses;  and  he  is  au- 
thorized in  case  he  disapproves  any  of  them,  to  re- 
turn them  to  the  House  with  his  objections,  within 
ten  days  after  he  receives  them:  and  then  triat  same 
Constitution  provides,  wisely  provides,  that  after  a  bill 
has  been  returned  with  his  veto  message,  two-thirds 
of  the  members  of  each  House  present,  shall  pass  it 
if  they  are  in  favor  of  it,  notwithstanding  the  veto. 
And  yet  Governors  are  talked  about  here,  as  though 
their 'will  was  to  be  law.  iiiit  the  rel)le^•entative8  of 
the  people  are  sent  there  exjiressly  for  tlie  purpose  of 
lejyislating  and  of  devising  bills  which  are  to  be 
pdbsed,  determining  in  the  first  place  whether  they 
shall  be  passed,  and  determining  in  the  last  place 
whether  they  shaU  be  passed  over  the  Governor's 
veto. 

We  have  been  treated  here  to  an  eulogy  on  English 
legislation  and  the  purity  of  Englisli  legislation.  Uow 
pure  it  was  on  that  day  when  my  friend  stood  on  the 
floor  of  the  House  of  Commons,  1  cannot  say;  but  if  he 
has  read  the  history  of  Lord  Walpole's  adnunistration 
he^  would  have  Ibund  there  more  corruption  than  ever 
existed  before  or  since  in  that  or  any  other  country, 
and  yet  he  talks  about  the  purity  of  English  legislation 
as  a  tning  to  be  adoj)ted  by  American  citizens;  and  the 
fact  that  there  has  been  but  one  veto  there  in  a  century 
which  my  learned  friend  has  been  able  to  ascertain, 
what  does  it  prove  ?  It  is  not  her  Majesty  who  signs 
a  bill  or  directs  whether  it  shall  be  signed  or  not;  it  is 
her  Majesty's  ministers,  her  Cabinet;  and  unlike  an 


48 


Americ  an  Cabinet  which  does  not  control  the  President, 
it  i.-<  the  perfect  tiuderstanding  tnere,  that  the  advice  of 
the  Cabinet  is  to  be  followt^d  liy  tiie  Kintr  or  C^ueen,  us 
the  la.-e  uiay  be;  and  whenever  that  fails  and  there  is 
a  «ii?agrceuieiit  heiween  the  King  or  Qia-eii  and  tlie 
Cal'inet,  then  llie  Cn'tinet  retitrti,  or  td-e  llu-y  are  re- 
moved iustinter.  And  they  have  another  doctrine 
there,  geutlenien;  when  the  House  of  Conanons  by  a 
det-ided  vote,  votes  against  any  measure  of  the  Cov-  , 
eminent,  of  the  Admiiiit;iraiiou,  tlie  Ministers  resign 
immediately,  as  a  niatler  uf  course,  and  her  M.ijesty, 
or  his  Majesty,  ai>i>oiuts  an  admiui>trarion  according  lu 
juinciide  and  m  views  wich  the  majority  of  the  House 
of  Coniuions  upon  the  matter  in  ([uestiou. 

Now  what  is  the  evidence  of  corruption  iu  any  of 
these  bills,  and  wliere  is  it  /  Wtiere,  except  iu  the  lan- 
guage of  the  counsel,  do  you  hud  it  ?  1  mean  before 
you,  as  jurors  actinir  under  au  oath,  to  be  governed  by 
the  testimony  given  before  you.  Yet  they  say  the  evi- 
dence was  excluded.  ISupi>o.-e  it  was:  the  case  is  not 
to  be  tried  upon  what  we  may  suppose  to  have  beeu 
the  evidence  if  it  had  not  been  excluded.  The  ad[nis- 
siou  or  exclusion  of  evidence  lies  alone  within  the 
province  of  the  Judge,  and  it  is  the  duty  of  counsel  to 
use,  iu  their  argument  to  the  Jury,  aud  the  duty  of  the 
Jury  to  use,  wuen  tiiey  retire  to  "the  jury-box,  the  evi- 
dence which  was  received  and  which  is  before  them 
iu  the  case.  But  my  learned  friend  has  said,  '■  These 
statutes  need  not  be  "in  evidence;  they  are  on  the  stat- 
ute-book, and  the  Court  will  take  judicial  cognizance 
of  them,  aud  the  Jury  wi:l  take  judicial  cognizance  of 
them'" — as  great  a  fallacy  as  ever  was  supposed,  in  my 
iudgment.  But  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  meet  him 
there.  Now,  I  am  going  to  talk  a  little  about  this 
West  Washington  Market  bill  iu  answer  to  my  friend 
wl.o  o;.ened  this  case,  aud  who  denounced  it  iu  all 
shapes  and  forms — as  indeed  both  counsel  did.  It  they 
could  present  that  opening  as  testimony,  they  would 
be  much  let^s  able  counsel  than  I  take  them  to  be,  if 
they  could  not  make  out  a  case.  You  will  bear  iu 
mind,  as  the  counsel  who  opened  this  case  has  told  you, 
that  this  land,  which  was  used  for  the  West  Washin^^- 
ton  Market,  was  on  a  spot  which  wa's  once  out  beyond 
low  water  mark,  and  docks  and  piers  were  extended 
out,  and,  in  consecjuence  of  '  that,  earth  formed 
there  from  the  action  of  the  currents  and  their  disturb- 
ance, and  that  the  city  proceeded  to  till  it  up  and  made 
land  there;  that  the  citv  alone  expended  all  the  money 
that  was  expended,  and!  the  State  never  paid  a  cent; 
aud  but  for  the  erection  of  these  wharves  aud  piers, 
there  would  have  been  no  land  there,  but  water,  as  it 
always  had  been,  It  was  these  obstructions  which 
caused  the  eddies,  which  threw  out  of  the  current  the 
passing  soil  which  Hows  in  the  stream,  and  thus 
made  these  little  islands  or  accretions  to  the  land.  It 
was  made,  too,  at  the  expense  aud  by  the  efforts  of 
the  city  entirely.  Somewhere  aloug  in  1855  or  1856, 
the  attention  of  the  State  officers  was  called  to  the  fact 
that  there  wasl  and  there,  where  it  was  origmally  water; 
and  the  claim  was  interposed  rhat  the  State,  as  para- 
mount owner,  was  entitled  to  all  the  lands  thus  made. 
Bear  in  mind  that  all  the  lime  the  State  bad  never 
reaped  a  sixpence  of  compensation  from  it  at  all,  and 
had  never  expended  a  fcixj.ence  in  any  way  or  in  any 
shape  whatever.  Upon  the  attention  of  the  Commis- 
sioners of  the  Land- Office  being  called  to  the  fact,  they 
executed  a  lease  to  Taylor  Brennan,  or  to  Taylor 
alone,  and  that  lease  had  to  be  renewed  from  year  to 
year.  Now,  it  is  a  grand  mistake  iu  my  friend  when 
he  says  that  the  city  made  $llo,OOU. 

Mr.  Williams— But  it  is  in  proof. 

Mr.  Foster — Where  ? 

Mr.  WILLIAM3 — In  the  West- Washington  Market 
case. 

Mr.  Foster — I  have  reliable  evidence  that  the  city 
did  not  receive  $5,000. 
Mr.  Williams — Ii  is  in  a  law  book. 
Mr.  FoiTKU — That  is  not  evidence  here.    I  repeat, 


the  State  never  recei  ved  a  cent  for  it,  and  the  Attorney 
(ieneral  advit^ed  against  any  suit  upon  the  ground  that 
the  Stale  would  not  obtain  "it  . 

iSIr.  Williams — Wliat  is  the  evidence  of  that  ? 

Mr.  FosiEK — Just  the  same  as  you  had  in  the 
oj'ening. 

Mi\  Williams — That  was  upon  facts  I  expected  to 
show. 

Mr.  Foster — Yon  did  not  expect  to  prove  them. 

Mr.  Williams— I  did  expect  to  provethem  aud  will 
now  if  you  will  lot  me. 

Mr.  Foster — \Vell,  they  got  this  land  and  what  was 
the  result  ?  Out  of  this  laiuf  which  cost  the  State  not 
one  cent,  they  have  reaped  $300,000;  the  money  is  iu 
the  treasury  to-day — that  is  not  disputed.  Gentlemen, 
what  was  the  character  of  that  law^  ?  It  was  just,  be- 
nevolent and  riglit  in  its  purpose,  and  it  was  pist  such 
a  law  as  the  State  would  be  bound  to  pass  in  a  ques- 
tion between  it  and  the  city,  througli  whose  means 
alone  such  claim  as  it  had  had  come  to  its  hands. 
That  law  directed  the  Commissioners  of  the  Land 
Office  to  sell  the  land  to  the  city  upon  such  terras  as 
were  e(iuitable  and  just,  taking  into  consideration  the 
fact  that  the  accretions  had  been  made  to  a  large  extent 
by  the  expenditures  of  the  city.  Was  not  that  just  ? 
Whi.h  of  vou  would  stand  ready  to  pick  the  pockets 
of  the  city  ? 

A  JuiKjR — This  land,  then,  was  not  sold  to  a  Corpo- 
ration or  body  of  men  ? 

Mr.  Foster — No,  Sir,  not  at  all. 

Mr.  Williams — It  was  sold,  aud  we  have  the  proof 
of  it  here. 

Mr.  Foster — Yes,  Sir,  aud  I  am  going  to  tell  how 
it  was  sold.    [The  counsel  then  read  from  the  West 
Washington  Market  act,  re  iding  the  :3d  and  7th  sec- 
tions.]   Is  not  that  just  ?    And  where  is  the  man  that 
\  will  deny  its  justice,  or  claim  that  it  goes  one  step 
further   than   the    city  was  in  duty  and  honesty 
bound  to  go  ?    The  seventh  section  directs  the  Con- 
troller to  "buy  the  land  upon  such  terms  as  he  shall 
deem  most  just.    That  is  what  he  is  directed  to  do. 
What  is  there  iu  that,  gentlemen,  that  shows  evi- 
dence of  corruption  ?    He  is  directed  upon  such  terms 
as  "  shall  be  satisfactory  to  himself,"  and  he  is  not 
directed  or  authorized  upon  any  other  terms  to  pay 
one  dollar  more  to  any  body  of  men,  or  any  man, 
than  he  deems  to  be  just  and  right.    These  are  the  two 
great  objectionable  features  of  that  bill.    In  other 
words,  the  Commissioners  of  the  Laud  Office,  your 
own  State  officers,  a  body  of  men  iu  whom  you  can 
have  confidence,  if  in  any  body,  for  they  are  elected 
by  the  people  every  two  or  three  years — they  are  au- 
thorized to  sell  this  land  upon  terms  which  are  just  and 
equitable.   That  is  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  West 
Washington  Market  bill.  The  city  authorities,  because 
they  deemed  it  right  aud  prudent  to  do  it,  paid  Taylor 
6c  Breunan  and  their  associates  such  sum  as  they 
i  chose  to  pay — not  as  they  were  bori'id  to  pay — but  as 
'  they  chote  to  pay.  for  their  outstanding  claims.  And 
i  you  will  bear  iu  mind  that  this  arrangement  was  made 
j  with  Taylor  »fe  Brennan  after  their"  judgments  were 
'  set  aside.    And  that  is  the  corrupt  legislation  of  1860  ! 
I  have  read  you  the  sections  which  have  been  relied 
upon  to  show  that  this  legislation  was  corrupt.  I 
I  should  be  ashamed  of  the  citizen  of  the  State  of  New- 
York  who  should  claim  that,  when  the  city  had  re- 
!  claimed  all  this  land,  the  State  should  take  it,  irre- 
spective of  what  they  had  paid  for  it  !    I  should  be 
ashamed  to  be  a  citizen  of  a  State  that  should  attempt 
\  to  reap  where  thev  had  not  sown  at  all.    And  I  would 
I  be  ashamed  of  the' legislator,  be  he  who  he  may,  who 
;  was  oi)po8ed  to  such  a  bill  as  that,  and  there  would  be 
no  day  of  my  life  that  I  should  regret  that  1  had  dealt 
with  the  City  of  New- York  fairly  and  honestly,  put- 
ting it  in  the  powder  of  the  State  olficers  to  do  what  was 
I  right  with  the  city.    Gentlemen,  that  bill  is  a  fair 
sample  of  all  the  others,  the  Governor's  veto  of  the 
i  one  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 


49 


Why,  they  tell  us,  with  regard  to  these  raikoads 
about  which  we  have  heard  eo  much,  that  there  is  a 
great  necessity  for  tliese  raih-oads  in  this  city,  which 
they  say  is  fifteen  miles  long.  The  Governor,  in_  his 
Message,  desii'es  ihe  same  roads,  aud  so  he  desires, 
among  other  thin;,'s,  that  the  fare  on  all  the  roads 
should  be  eijaal.  Have  my  learned  fj  lends  attempted 
to  deny  that  ihe  fare  in  these  bills  was  precisely  the 
same  as  what  they  were  on  the  old  roads  /  Why, 
what  is  one  of  the  j^reat  faults  that  the  Governor  finds 
with  these  acis  ?  They  don't  pay  a  lai-ge  bonus  into 
the  City  Treasury  for  you  and!  to  pay  whenever  we 
ride,  as  we  frequently  do,  on  those  railroads  in  the 
City  of  New-Yoik.  Ihey  don't  pay  a  large  bonus  to 
relieve  men  from  paying  for  the  improvement  of  the 
city  iu  proportion  to  their  property.^  They  don't  pay  a 
large  bonus  into  the  City  Treasury  in  order  to  relieve 
the  rich  and  compel  the  poor  to  pav  a  larger  piice  for 
traveling  than  they  otherwise  would.  For  all  that  a 
railroad  corporation  or  any  other  corporation  pays  in 
the  way  of  a  bonus  is  estimated,  in  its  capital  stock,  or 
to  the  holders  of  that  stock,  and  the  managers  will  see 
to  it,  if  they  can,  that  they  shall  reap  a  fair  reward 
for  all  their  investments,  in  whatever  form.  I  do  not 
blame  Gov.  Morgan  for  desiring  that  the  class  to  which 
he  belongs  should  escape  taxation.  I  do  not  blame  the 
slaveholders  of  Baltimore  that  they  should  have  a 
Park  more  expensive  than  our  own,  built  by  the  poor 
who  ride  in  the  railroads  and  public  conveyances,  and 
who  have  to  pay  this  bonus !  I  mean  I  don't  blame 
them  80  far  as  their  own  class  is  concerned.  But  I  say 
Gov.  Morgan  is  worthy  or  blame  if  he  attempts  to 
foist  these  obnoxious  principles  into  these  bills.  Sup- 
pose all  the  railroads  through  our  country  had  to  pay  a 
bonus  on  their  charters.  This  would  relieve  the  rich 
from  taxes,  Gut  would  necessarily  impose  upon  the 
passenger  an  additional  burden ;  and  I  am  thankful, 
for  one,  that  the  Legislature  did  not  adopt  any  such 
provision  in  regara  to  these  railroads  in  the  City  oi 
New-York.  And  I  trust,  gentlemen,  tliat  when  any 
of  you  use  those  roads  you  will  be  able  to  recollect 
that  you  are  not  paying  a  tax  into  the  Treasury  of 
that  city,  whose  bueiner-.s  you  increase  by  your  busi- 
ness there,  and  whose  prosperity  you  pamper  by  your 
business.  There  is  scarcely  a  railroad  in  the  State 
that  charges  the  fare  allowed  by  law.  The  New-York 
Central,  with  its  fare  reduced  to  two  cents  a  mile, 
does  not  charge  even  that;  while  if  they  had  paid  a 
bonus  of  |10,0U0,000  to  the  State  they  would  have  to 
increase  the  fare  in  order  to  reap  a  fair  investment  on 
their  capital.  Yet  if  I  were  a  rich  man  in  the  City  of 
New- York  1  should  admire  the  logic  of  his  Honor  the 
Governor. 

NoWj  was  there  no  necessity  for  railroads  when 
these  bills  were  passed  ?  Let  mv  learned  friend  speak. 
He  has  told  us  of  the  Third,  and  Sixth,  and  Eighth  ave- 
nue roads  extendiog  to  the  upper  part  of  the  city,  with 
this  same  rate  of  fare,  and  with  cars  calculated  to  con- 
tain 40  people  comfortably,  and  yet  he  has  told  you 
that  at  nearly  all  hours  in  the  day,  from  morning  till 
late  at  night,  there  are  generally  from  60"to  70  hanging 
on  to  these  cars,  many  of  them  at  the  immiuent  hazard 
of  their  lives ;  and  yet  it  is  wrong  to  have  railroads 
unless  you  can  have  them  with  the  Governor's  particu- 
lar principle  attached  to  them — that  a  bonus  must  be 
paid  into  the  City  Treasury !  But,  gentlemen,  his  Ex- 
cellency discovered  that  these  acts  were  grants  in  per- 
petuity !  You  have  heard  of  those  who  see  things 
yvhich'  are  not  to  be  seen  ?  and  the  same  difficulty 
seems  to  have  existed  with  him  that  exists  with  my 
learned  friend  in  this  respect.  I  will  endeavor  to 
show  you  that  they  are  not  in  perpetuity  at  all;  but 
that  t&ey  can  be  repealed,  whenever  the  Legislature  is 
in  session,  if  they  desire  to  do  so.  My  learued  friend 
says  they  cannot  be  repealed  because  they  are  not 
joint  stock  companies,  but  they  admit  that  the  Legis- 
lature has  provided  for  repealing  certain  corporations 
and  joint  stock  companies.  Now,  it  is  not  necessary 


that  a  thing  should  be  called  a  joint  stock  company, 
or  a  corporation,  or  association  in  order  to  make  it  so. 
The  question  is  simply  whether  they  exercise  the 
rights  of  associations,  the  rights  of  corporations,  or 
the  rights  of  joint  stock  compauies  ?    In  other  words, 
do  they  exercise  rights  which  individuals  as  such,  and 
copartners  as  such,  cannot  do  ?    Can  individuals  exer- 
I  ciee  the  right  of  laying  railroads  tiirough  the  streets 
of  the  City  of  New-York?    Can  a  partnership  be  or- 
ganized for  such  a  business  as  that  ?    No.    They  must 
!  have,  in  addition  to  the  associating  together  of  the  per- 
}  sons  and  individuals,  a  franchise  granted  by  the  Legisla- 
i  ture  of  the  State,  which  alone  can  grant  it.   We  have  a 
i  little  iustrument  here  called  the  Constitution.    It  is 
j  small,  as  my  learned  friends  say,  but  it  is  very  potent 
I  indeed ;  and  I  want  to  call  your  attention  not  only  to 
i  the  3d  section  of  the  8th  article,  but  also  to  the  Ist 
I  section.   There  wnll  be  no  mystery  then,  and  I  think 
i  no  question  but  that  the  Legislature  can,  at  any 
I  moment  they  please,  alter  or  repeal  any  of  these  char- 
:  ters  as  they  see  tit ;  and  that  the  gi  ant  is  upon  this 
j  constitutional  condition  that  the  Legislature  shall  have 
that  power.   The  Ist  section  of  article  8th  says: 

"Corporations  may  be  formed  under  general  laws,  but  shall 
not  be  created  by  tpecial  act,  except  for  municipal  purposes,  and 
in  cases  where,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Legislature,  the  objects 
of  the  corporation  cannot  be  obtained  under  general  laws.  All 
general  laws  and  special  acts  passed  pursuant  to  this  section  may 
be  altered  from  time  to  time,  or  repealed." 

And  these  are  j  ust  such  cases,  and  you  wiU  find  them 
acted  upon  in  Syracuse,  New- York,  Buffalo,  Brook- 
lyn, aud  I  don't  know  but  other  cities.  "  And  may 
be  from  time  to  time  repealed."  It  is  not  necessary 
to  insert  them  in  the  bill,  for  here  is  a  bill  that  cannot 
I  be  controverted,  aud  which  ovenides  all  other  bills 
!  and  all  other  acts  imtil  the  people,  in  their  majesty 
aud  in  a  constitutional  way,  shall  wipe  it  out,  and 
place  another  in  its  stead  j  and  the  third  section  of  this 
article  says: 

"  The  term  Corporation,  as  used  in  this  article,  shall  be  con- 
strued to  include  all  associations  and  joint  stock  companies  hav- 
ing any  of  the  powers  and  privileges  of  corporations  not  pos- 
sessed by  individuals  or  partnerships." 

Is  it  not  one  of  the  incidents  of  a  corporation  to  be 
allowed  to  lay  down  rails  and  carry  passengers  on  a 
railroad  ? 

I    But,  gentlemen,  there  is  anothe  difficulty  with  this 
i  bill  which  the  Go\^ernor  has  fouud  out,  and  which  in 
his  opinion,  and  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Greeley,  is  evidence 
I  of  fraud  and  corruption  on  the  part  of  the  Legislature. 
They  provided  for  this  monstrous  principle  that  suits 
to  be  brought  by  and  against  these  companies  shall  be 
^  tried  in  the  First  Judicial  District  of  New- York  ! 
i  Well,  now,  in  the  first  place,  they  have  not  construed 
j  the  meaning  of  this  section  rightly  at  all;  it  refers  only 
I  to  the  suits  to  be  brought  iu  pursuance  of  this  act ;  as 
for  instance,  where  any  difficulty  might  arise  between 
the  city  or  the  property  owners  fronting  on  the  streets 
in  which  the  roads  were.   It  was  never  intended  to 
relate  to  suits  between  them  and  individuals.  But 
whether  it  was  or  not  is  of  no  cousequence  whatever, 
\  as  I  will  show  you  by  another  constitutional  provision. 
Now,  you  will  bear  in  miud,  that  Mr.  Conkliu^^  testified 
i  here  that  he  believed  that  Mr.  Littlejohn  took  no  part 
I  in  the  debate  on  those  bills,  but  believed  he  did  on  the 
I  West  Washington  Market  bill;  but  not  on  these  rail- 
road bills  vrheu  they  were  first  passed;  but  he  did 
after  the  Governor's  veto  was  presented.   The  Speaker 
does  not  diaw  up  the  bills,  and  he  is  not  accoimtable 
for  their  form ;  lie  is  accountable  only  to  the  same 
extent  as  any  other  member  of  the  Legislature,  to  see 
tnat   they  contain  no  principle  injurious  to  public 
property,  so  far  as  he  can  under  the  circumstances  of 
i  ths  case.   These  bills  passed  in  the  first  place  with  all 
I  their  features,  without  any  attention  being  paid  to 
I  them,  80  far  as  the  Speaker  was  concerned.  Now, 
I  gentlemen,  there  is  a  little  rule  of  parliamentary  law, 
j  which  provides  that  when  a  bill  is  returned  under  the 
I  veto  of  the  Governor  it  cannot  be  amended — you  have 


50 


got  to  take  it  and  paes  it  over  hi8  veto  ns  a  ■whole,  or 
not  at  all.  There  is  a  little  clause  in  this  eame  'M 
flection  of  the  Sth  artifle,  which  makes  it  whollj"  un- 
imjiortant  what  the  law  itself  may  have  declared  with 
regard  to  the  Court  in  which  suit 'shall  he  brought: 

"  And  all  corporations  shall  have  the  right  to  biip,  nnd  shall  be 
subject  to  be  sued  iu  all  Courta,  hi  UXe  manuer  as  uuturul  per-  , 

KOUS.*'  I 

Now,  gentlemen,  should  that  bill  have  been  ^killed 
because  it  contaiued  this  restrictiou  ?    When  it  was 
utterly  nsele?8  as  coming  in  contact  with  the  Constitu- 
tion aiid  could  work  injury  to  no  hum:in  being  what- 
ever .'    But  "•  there  were  no  articles  of  association." 
There  are  none  in  any  of  these  Kailroad  bills;  there  is 
not  in  any  Cise  where ^  charter  is  granted  by  special 
act;  and  you  may  go  back  to  the  foundation  of  the 
Government  and  find  no  such  thing  as  an  article  of  as- 
sociation in  the  statute  book.   It  is  only  where  associa- 
tions are  formed  under  general  laws,  where  companies  i 
are  authorized  to  make  special  charter  for  themselves,  I 
and  limit  its  duration  as  they  mav  to  10,000  years  under 
the  general  litiilroad  act.  And  there  is  no  jiower  to  re-  ] 
peal  it,  except  that  which  I  have  referred  to  in  this 
first  section  of  the  Constitution.    And  you  know  that 
railroads  wliich  are  organized  under  the  general  Rail-  ■ 
road  act,  do  limit  the  duration  of  their  charter  to  a 
thousand  years,  and  some  of  them  even  more.    And  a  \ 
thousand  years  is  just  as  objectionable  as  a  million  is,  i 
because  it  is  too  far  in  the  future  to  remedy  any  difficul-  \ 
ty  which  may  exist.    And  this  twaddle,  for  it  is  but  ' 
twaddle,  let  it  come  from  what  source  it  may,  that  j 
•where  a  special  charter  is  granted  there  are  in  it  articles 
of  association,  is  perfectly  preposterous.    I  should  like  ! 
to  have  my  fiiend  sit  down  and  hunt  up  the  statute  ' 
authorizing  a  special  charter  and  providing  for  articles  i 
of  association.   You  can  find  it  in  the  acts  where  sev- 
eral companies  are  consolidated  together  in  a  gen- 
eral act,  as  in  the  consolidation  act  for  all  the  railroads  j 
between  Albany  and  Bufialo.  | 

But  the  Counsel  says  :  "  These  railroad  charters  ; 
given  as  they  are  here,  are  intended  to  keep  out  all 
other  railroad  coi-porations."  Well,'  what  of  that  ? 
What  would  a  charter  ])e  worth  if  it  did  not  do  this  ?  i 
Who  would  venture  to  build  a  railroad  in  Avenue  D,  i 
if  another  company  could  come  and  put  another  road 
in  the  same  street  ?  Who  would  take  a  charter  or  in- 
vest a  dollar  in  such  a  concern  as  that  ?  Does  it  not 
obtain  in  all  other  charters  ?  And  if  it  were  a  power 
to  be  exercised  by  the  Legislature,  after  havicg  passed 
a  charter  for  a  raili-oad  through  the  length  of  our  State, 
with  the  additional  right  to  alter  or  niodify  or  repeal 
the  charter  and  lower  the  taiifl  of  prices;  who  would 
expect  to  see  an  honest  Legislature  authorize  another 
railroad  to  be  laid  right  along  side  of  it?  But 
I  have  spent  more  time,  gentlemen,  upon  these 
statutes  than  they  are  worth  ;  yet  it  is  prop- 
er that  a  little  of  this  mist  and  darkness 
which  has  1)een  attempted  to  be  thrown  around  this 
ca«e,  should  be  dissipated,  and  that  these  acts  should 
be  placed  in  their  proper  light.  One  of  these  very 
acts,  which  they  denominate  the  "Belt  Road,"  and 
which  the  Goveraor  vetoed,  had  in  it  this  express  pro- 
vision for  its  repeal  or  alteration.  Yet  it  falls  under 
the  same  fell  swoop  of  his  Excellency's  veto.  I  want 
to  say  another  word,  and  give  you  the  history  of  that 
legislation,  and  see  whether  his  Excellency,  notwith- 
standing this  veto,  addressed  undoubtedly  to  the  popu- 
lar ear,  might  not  have  substituted  something  better, 
if  he  thought  these  bills  so  injurious  to  the  public  in- 
terests. On  the  10th  day  of  April,  1860,  these  five 
bills  with  regard  to  railroads  were  retunied  from  the 
Senate  to  the  Aseeu  bly,  with  the  concurrence  of  the 
Senate  thereto,  and  on  that  10th  day  of  April  the  As- 
sembly  ordered  tliem  to  be  sent  to  the  C4overnor,  who 
received  them  probably  on  the  11th.  He  knew^  i»er- 
fectly  well  that  it  was  decided  by  the  concurrent  vote 
of  both  Houses,  long  before  he  vetoed  theee  bills,  that 


the  I^egislature  should  adjourn  on  the  17th  of  April, 
seven  davs,  at  the  most,  from  the  time  ho  received 
these  bills.  There  is  another  instrument  of  this 
little  book,  the  Constitution,  which  ])rovi<les 
that  the  Governor  has  a  right  to  hold  bills, 
and  unless  tliey  are  i-etin-ned  to  the  Ijegisluture 
within  ten  days  they  become  laws  unhss  the  Lr^ishi- 
ture  before  (ca  (hiys  kIioU  hare  niljovrwd,  then  they 
fail,  lie  sent  them  back  to  the  House  on  the  IGth, 
when  he  knew  that  on  the  next  day  the  Ijei^iblature 
was  to  adjourn,  and  he  had  only  to  hold  them  over  un- 
til the  next  day,  and  they  would  have  been  killed  so 
dead  as  to  have  never  l>een  heard  of  again.  He  had  it 
iu  his  i>ower  to  demolish  these  bills,  but  he  chose  to 
write  a  message  for  the  public  ear,  and  thus  throw  the 
responsibility  upon  the  House,  who  did  just  what  he 
expected  they  would  do,  passed  them  over  his 
veto,  and  then  if  there  w;>8  any  public  clamor 
he  expected  to  get  the  benefit  of  it ; 
and  to  get.  the  railroads,  too!  If  he  believed  them  un- 
constitutional and  wrong, what  right  had  he,while  hold- 
ing in  his  hands  the  power  to  desstroy  them ;  what 
right  had  he  to  give  them  up  and  place  them  in  the 
hands  of  a  body  which  the  defendant  in  this  case  says 
was  corrupt?  Better  let  that  incorruptible  (JloveiTior 
hold  them  one  day  longer,  and  they  would  have  been 
as  dead,  as  all  tlie  vetoes  in  the  world  could  make 
them.  And  there  would  have  been  ample  time  to  have 
prepared  and  submitted  to  the  Legislature  such  bills 
as  it  was  his  prerogative  to  do,  which  could  have  been 
free  from  all  the  olSjections  wiiich  he  had  to  the?e  bills. 

But,  gentlemen,  let  us  see  what  the  Govenior  him- 
self did  in  that  same  year.  In  1853,  tlie  Xew-York 
Common  Council  undertook  by  resolution  to  give  to 
three  individuals  a  grant  to  lay  down  railroads  in 
nearly  all  the  streets  of  New- York.  Bat  it  was  found 
they  "had  not  any  such  power.  They  undertook  to 
make  this  gi-ant  for  the  benefit  of  individuals  and  their 
assigns,  just  as  these  bills  say.  The  Court  did  not 
sanction  right  of  eminent  domain  in  the  city,  they 
chose  to  reserve  it  in  the  State.  But  in  this  very  year 
of  J860,  and  this  same  session,  a  bill  was 
introduced  confirming  these  resolutions.  The 
first  section  grants  the  permission  intended 
to  be  given  by  the  Common  Council  in  the 
resolution  passed  in  1853,  to  William  Ivider,  James 
Murphy,  Minor  Story  and  their  assigns.  There  is  this 
difference,  in  the  other  bills  there  was  12  individuals, 
here  there  are  but  3 ;  but  the  more  exclusive  it  was  the 
more  proper  for  the  Governor  to  sign.  Let  us  see  how 
far  it  went — it  is  pretty  s-ridiron-y,  gentlemen: 
"  Through  Ninth  avenue,  Gansevoort  street,  Wash- 
ington place,  Greenwich  street,  and  such  other  streets 
and  avenues  as  are  mentioned  in  said  resolution,"  and 
the  Lord  knows  how  many  of  them  there  were.  If 
you  look  at  these  five  acts  you  understand  the  privi- 
leges granted;  but  when  you  want  to  leam 
what  franchises  are  granted  in  this  bill,  which 
the  Governor  signed  without  any  hesitation,  you 
have  to  explore  the  resolutions  of  th*e  Common  Coun- 
cil of  New-York  for  1853,  to  ascertam  what  that  statute 
is.  Yet  this  apnroved  itself  to  the  Governor  and  he 
;  signed  it.  Ana,  according  to  the  argument  of  my 
learned  fi lends,  there  is  no  right  to  rei>eal  this,  there 
is  no  limitation  at  all  to  the  fare;  they  can  charge  as 
much  as  they  please;  and  the*  bill  provides 
"that  this  a^-t  shall  take  effeLt  immediately!" 
,  But  we  heard  of  no  veto  there  ?  It  is  no 
corporation,  no  joint  stock  company,  and  no  asso- 
ciation; it  has  no  limitations,  and  no  responsibility; 
and  you  must  search  through  the  archives  of  the  Com- 
mon Council  to  find  out  what  is  really  granted  by  that 
law;  but  it  anpiovcd  it^ielf  to  his  Excellency  the  Gov- 
ernor. Now,"!  don't  find  fault  with  his  Excellency, 
but  upon  what  principle  can  it  be  assumed,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  all  evidence,  that  these  five  acts  which 
they  complain  of  are  all  wrong  1  You  will  bear  iu 
miiid,  this  resolution  was  passed  in  lt!53,  and  this  law 


51 


is  passed  seven  years  afterward,  and  the  roads  not 
built  then — seven  years  gone  by,  and  the  enterprise 
not  completed !  And  there  is  no  provision  declaring 
that  they  shall  finish  them  in  any  given  time. 
There  is  not  an  objectionable  feature  in 
the  bills  of  which  they  complain  that  is 
not  in  that  single  one.  And' we  heard  in  the  open- 
ing ttiat  there  is  another  flagitious  fault  in  theee  bills; 
we  have  not  heard  of  it  in  the  evidence ;  and  you  will 
bear  in  mind  that  we  threw  the  door  open  wide  in  that 
respect,  provided  they  would  consent  as  a  part  of  their 
proposition  to  connect  Mr.  Littlejohn  with  the  corrup- 
tion; but  we  did  not  deem,  nor  did  the  Court  deem,  if 
we  had  consented  to  it,  that  it  was  proper  to  spend  the 
time  of  this  Jury  and  this  Court  in  the  investigation  of 
a  (question  of  corruption  of  a  party  of  men  at  large. 
That  was  not  in  issue  here.  It  is  the  busi- 
ness of  legislators  to  purify  themselves  of  corruption, 
when  they  may  deem  there  is  coiTuption  in  their  body. 
Committees  are  aiipoiuted  to  investigate  into  the  trutJi 
of  these  charges,  and  bring  the  guilty  to  justice  This 
was  done  in  the  case  of  a  Senator  from  Long  Island  in 
1830  or  1831,  and  also  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Campbell 
in  1835  and  183G,  and  both  these  members  were  ex- 
pelled. And  it  has  again  and  again  been  brought  into 
play ;  and  it  has  been  brought  into  action  in  the  Con- 
gress of  the  laud,  and  been  instrumental  to  some  extent 
in  pm-ilying  legislation  there.  There,  in  the  Legisla- 
ture, is  the  pliice  to  purify  legislation  from  cor- 
ruption, and  there  is  the  place  to  attack  the  Lobby. 
My  learned  associate,  never  said  there  was  corruption 
in'the  legislation.  He  said  if  we  admitted  there  was 
corruption  in  the  Assembly,  that  didn't  affect  Mr.  Lit- 
tlejohn ;  unless  it  was  proved  that  he  was  corrupted. 
He  said  farther,  if  they  could  convict  him  with  the 
corruption,  then  he  would  concede  the  corruption  in 
order  to  give  them  every  facility ;  but  not  thus  to  let 
them  go  into  the  corruption  of  the  Assembly — to  go  on 
a  fishing  excursion  here  at  the  expense  of  the  County 
of  Oswego,  in  the  admin^tration  of  its  jurisprudence. 
Now,  gentlemen,  I  trust  1  have  dissipated  all  the  pre- 
tense of  corruption.  How  much  there  was  in  that 
legislation  I  don't  know  ;  I  am  not  responsible 
for  it,  for  it  is  long  since  I  have  taken  any  part 
in  Ipolitics  except  as  a  voter  ;  violent  scenes 
take  place  on  the  lobby  ;  nor  I  cannot 
tell;  the  defendant  can  explain  to  you  better;  he  was 
there.  "  xsothiog  but  good  motives  actuated  this  pub- 
lication," and  yet,  not  content  with  what  I  have  stated 
with  regard  to  the  matter,  he  consents  to  become  a 
member  of  this  corrupt  third  house  of  that  Legisla- 
ture, and  goes  to  Albany  for  the  express  purpose  of  in- 
terfering with  the  business  which  belongs  to  the  mem- 
bers alone.  What  voice  had  Horace  Greeley  in  organ- 
izing that  Assembly  ?  What  right  had  he  to  interfere 
between  the  constituents  who  sent  their  members 
tbei-e  and  the  oflicers  they  were  to  appoint  ?  It  was 
time  enough  for  him,  and  it  was  proper  for  him,  only 
when  they  had  done  their  work,  to  speak.  Then,  if 
he  is  the  public  conservator  of  the  public  morals  and 
legislation,  let  him  speak.  But  what  business  had  he 
then  with  the  nomination  of  Speaker  ?  To  go  there  to 
lobby — going  15U  miles  from  his  home  to  labor  for 
the  express  and  sole  purpose  of  defeating  an 
individual  from  being  Speaker  of  the  Assembly  ? 
Who  gave  him  his  commission?  Is  it  in  virtue 
of  this  right  claimed  of  being  an  editor? 
Why,  the  Lord  forgive  and  save  us;  these  rights  are 
like  the  rod  of  Aaron,  swallowing  up  all  other  rods, 
legislative  or  otherwise,  and  they  have  a  maw  as  inor- 
dinate as  that  of  death !  I  should  suppose,  from  the 
tone  in  which  Horace  Greeley  speaks  of  the  3d 
House,  that  of  all  things  on  earth  he  would  scorn  to  be 
found  there,  much  less  in  presenting  appliances  there  to 
the  Legislature  with  regard  to  matters  exclusively 
their  own.  The  Court  has  expressly  provided  that 
they  are  the  judges  of  the  election  and  qualification  of 
their  members;  and  the  Court  boa  placed  in  their 


power  alone  the  selection  and  election  of  their  officers, 
and  any  tampeiing  with  them,  no  matter  what  is  as- 
signed as  the  motive,  is  suspicious  in  the  highest 
degree.  Gentlemen,  Horace  Greeley  is  not  conscious 
exactly,  so  that  he  can  swear  to  it,  that  on 
the  1st  day  of  January  he  intended  to  become 
a  candidate  for  the  Senate  of  the  United  States 
— a  proud  ofiice,  to  which  the  highest  of  usmay  aspire; 
it  is  in  my  judgment,  to  him  who  can  afford  it,  the  first 
office  in  the  world,  a  thousand  times  more  to  be  desired 
by  him  whose  pecuniary  condition  will  allow  him  to 
take  it,  than  the  oflice  of  President.  Few  men  have 
filled  the  situation  of  President,  but  have  fallen 
from  their  high  estate;  but  many  a  man's^  honor 
through  life  and  long  after  death,  has  been  acf^iured  in 
this  body,  which  until  recently  has  been  distmguished 
for  decorum  and  dignity.  I  do' not  speak  of  Mr.  Gree- 
ley for  being  a  candidate ;  I  do  not  blame  him  for  hav- 
ing Chapman  and  Opdyke  and  all  these  men  to  help  him ; 
but  I  ask  you  if  there  is  not  some  little  temp- 
tation to  suspicion  that  he  wanted  Mr.  Litjohn 
out  of  the  way — he  ksew  him  to  be  a  friend  of  the 
great  man  whom  they  have  described  as  the  gi-eatest 
statesman  on  this  continent,  and  who  was  overthrown 
by  somebody  at  Chicago — perhaps  the  defendant  knows 
who.  The  Scripture  gives  us  an  instance  of  the  man 
who  felt  an  unwillingness  to  have  i\Iordecai  sitting  at 
tliegate;  and  I  think  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  if 
the  defendant  had  happened  to  aspire  to  the  office  of 
Senator,  it  would  have  been  convenient  and  been 
easier  for  him  to  reach  that  elevated  station  if  Mr. 
Littlejohn  and  Mr.  Myers  of  Syracuse  were  not  there; 
both  of  whom  were  known  to  be  the  ardent  friends  of 
that  great  and  honorable  statesman  who  now  is  at  the 
head  of  this  Governmeot.  Look  and  see  if  you  can- 
not find  some  motive  there,  gentlemen,  without  travel- 
ing very  far  out  of  this  case;  see  if  you  cannot 
ascertain  without  much  difficulty  why  this  ponderous 
hammer  of  The  Tribune  was  brought  to  bear  upon 
these  men,  to  annihilate  them. 

But,  Gentlemen,  only  lix  of  the  members  of  that . 
corrupt  Legislature,  my  learned  friend  tells  you,  have 
been  returned.  Will  he  tell  us  what  has  been  the  fair 
average  of  those  returned  since  the  single-district  sys- 
tem, when  there  has  not  been  more  than  the  ordinary 
corruption  which  they  speak  of?  When  have  there 
been  more  than  six  retained  in  office  ?    Kotation  in 

,  office  is  the  cry;  towns  claim  their  turns;  and  I  think 
one  of  the  great  evils  of  the  new  Constitution  is  the 
single  districts  for  the  House  and  Senate  that  have 

^  been  established. 

j  The  next  theme  of  our  learned  friends,  is  that  the 
plaintiff  has  sufiered  no  injury.  He  has  been  reelected 
by  his  District,  and  reelected  by  the  Assembly,  with  a 
new  set  of  men  too,  you  will  remark,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  six;  and  he  has  received  an  honorable,  and 
j  what  was  once  a.  lucrative  appointment  to  a  foreign 
I  country.  But  are  these  evidences  that  he  has  not  been 
:  traduced  or  injured  ?  Gentlemen,  De  Witt  C.  Little- 
I  john  v.'as  known  in  this  place  in  the  first  Assembly 
j  District;  he  had  come  there  as  the  learned  defendant 
went  to  A'ew-York,  poor;  he  had  been  the  architect  of 
his  own  fortunes,  and  built  up  a  local  reputation  as 
high  as  fl  at  which  the  defendant  enjoys  in  the  City  of 
Xew-York,  and  by  his  own  sterling  industry,  integi'ity, 
and  talent.  He  has  not  built  himself  up  to  grind  other 
people  down,  or  by  wielding  an  engine  of  power, 
witn  which  no  other  engine  in  this  country  can 
probably  be  compared.  He  could  meet  these 
assaults  in  his  district  and  he  did  meet  them  there  for 
he  spoke  in  almost  every  school  district  there,  and  he 
refuted  all  the  allegations  of  corruption,  and  he 
satisfied  that  constituency  that  he  had  been  maligned 
and  abui^ed.  He  did  not  seek  a  re-nomination,  but  it 
was  forced  upon  him,  and  when  he  was  ])laced  in  the 
field,  he  fought  that  battle  as  a  man  should,  and  he 
succeeded.  Is  that  any  evidence  that  he  had  not  been 
injured  ?    He  received  the  election  of  Speaker  of  the 


House  after  his  arrival  at  Albany,  by  au  Assembly 
fresh  from  their  constituents,  with  the  exception  of 
five  wlio  voted  with  bini  on  these  bills,  lie  succeeded 
then,  because  his  friends  were  the  }H-ojde  iiud  these 
new  members  were  satitjfied  that  all  this  clamor  aj^aiust 
him  was  unioimded  and  unjust.  And  he  received 
from  the  men  who  a]>|)reciated  his  merits 
the  oiler  of  a  high  national  oflice.  Yes, 
gentlemen,  he  received  it;  but  coiild  he  accept  it, 
with  this  cloud  over  his  character  ?  I  ask  you,  could 
he  go  as  the  representative  of  this  nation  to  England, 
there  to  bo  met  by  these  libelous  articles  in  Thk  Tjuu- 
uxK  (tor  they  circulate  there),  and  by  the  missiles 
which  his  friend  Mr.  Greeley  would  send  after  him, 
with  no  record  to  show  that  he  had  been  maliti;ned  ? 
It  was  duo  to  himself,  due  to  his  friends,  that  he  tmould 
hrst  sustain  his  character,  and  wijie  oif  the  blemisti 
which  had  been  j)laced  upon  it,  before  he  should  place 
himself  alar  from  thofe  who  knew  him  well.  How 
proud  a  thing  it  would  have  been  for  Mr.  Littlejohn, 
as  the  American  Consul  at  Liverpool,  in  passing 
through  the  streets  there,  fo  have  been  hooted 
at  as  the  man  who  had  been  the  corrupt  Speaker  of  a 
corrupt  House  of  Assembly  in  America!  I  submit 
that  it  was  his  first  duty  to  wipe  out,  this  stain  on  his 
character,  and  show  the'injustice  of  those  who  had  ma- 
ligned him,  and  who  had  forced  him  into  a  court  of 
justice  lor  redress.  How  could  he  go  and  leave  this 
stain  behind  him  ?  He  could  not  do  it.  Justice  to  his 
family,  to  himself,  to  his  friends,  to  the  institutions  of 
ourcountiy,  and  to  the  Government  who  had  tendered 
him  this  high  office  abroad,  all  required  of  him  that  he 
should  not  go  there  with  a  tarnished  reputation. 

It  is  a  blessed  privilege,  gentlemen,  that  a  man  can 
be  tried  by  a  jury  !  It  is  a  blessed  privilege  when  a 
man  can  be  tried  by  those  whose  sympathies  are  and 
should  be  like  his  own,  and  who  look  with  indig- 
nation upon  every  attempt  of  those  in  power  to  bear 
down  on  those  wJio  occupy  positions,  and  whose  means 
will  not  enable  them  to  return  the  assaults  and  fairly 
protect  themselves.  Do  you  care  for  your  interest  or 
your  families  ?  Are  your  own  reputa  ions  worth  a 
groat  to  you  1  Be  careful  that  you  don't  aid  in  this 
over-riding  influence  of  the  press !  Be  careful  you 
don't  hold  out  inducements  for  it  to  be  corrupt  and 
regardless  of  the  rights  of  citizens  !  Public  journals 
are  good  in  their  place ;  but  let  us  look  at  this  point 
upon  which  we  have  heard  so  much.  Who  is  it  writes 
ttiis  article  against  Mr.  Littlejohn  l  Is  it  one  naving  a 
right  to  vote  for  or  agidnst  him  as  member  of  the 
Assembly,  in  the  District  of  Oswego  ? — or  is  he  a  man 
who  officiouely  interferes  in  these  things  ?  If  he  had 
published  this  in  a  paper  which  circulates  only  in 
Oswego  Coimty,  or  in  that  district,  it  might  to  some 
extent  have  been  pardonable,  if  it  was  from  honest 
motives.  But  what  necessity  was  there,  for  the 
purj)ose  of  defeating  Mr.  Littlejohn  in  the  1st 
Assembly  District  of  Oswego,  of  sending  this 
to  at  least  a  million  of  people — all  over  the  country, 
and  to  some  extent  all  over  the  globe  ?  The  privilege 
not  only  to  prevent  bis  election,  but  to  impair  his  rep- 
utation to  the  ends  of  the  earth!  And  yet  "  he  is  not 
injured!"  Could  Mr.  Littlejohn,  if  he  had  ever  so 
much  ambition,  accept  any  State  nomination  with  this 
stigma  attached  to  him,  with  any  hope  of  being 
elected,  until  he  had  wiped  out  this  stain  ?  I  should 
like  to  know  what  my  learned  friend  considers  injury 
and  insult  to  a  man.  Nothing,  I  supi)ose,  but  takiug  a 
dollar  out  of  his  pocket  would  be  an  injury.  Mr.  Lit- 
tlejohn has  a  light  to  aspire  to  the  highe^t  office  in  this 
land;  his  talents  entitle  him  to  it,  and  his  course  in 
life  entitles  him  to  it;  and  his  faithfulness  to  his  politi- 
cal friends,  and  the  faithful  performance  of  his  duty, 
entitle  him  to  it,  if  he  chooses  to  ask  for  it.  But  is  he 
not  shut  out  as  etfectually  as  if  he  were  hanged,  while 
he  consents  to  this  traduction  on  his  fame  and  his  ma- 
ligner  stands  on  the  record  uniebuked? 

This  is  not  an  action  for  slander  uttered  bythebreath 


of  living  man— heard  to-day  and  forgotten  to-morrow ! 
250,000  papers  issued  from  The  Tuir.UNE  Office  contain 
this  article;  they  were  read  deliberately  by  millions  of 
people,  and  theHe.papers  are  preserved  in' every  town 
in  tliis  StatCj  and  in  all  the  iN'oriheni  States  of  thi^i 
nation,  and  in  all  tlio  other  States  where  they  circulate 
at  all.  Thev  are  bound  up  and  kept  for  reference  in  ' 
public  and  in  private  libraries,  where  gentlemen  de- 
sire a  continuous  history  of  the  counti-y,  for  nothing 
like  a  newspajier  continues  that  history  bo  gra])hicnlly, 
and  in  the  main  so  correctly.  And  when  Mr.  Little- 
jotin  shall  have  done  with  all  the  alf'airs  of  this  earth, 
and  shall  be  sleeping  in  the  grave,  these  traductions  of 
this  defend'int  may  meet  those  who  may  come  after 
him  in  his  line,  under  circumstances  calculated  in 
the  most  poignant  degree  to  wound  their  feelings, 
and  their  mouths  iire  eliectually  closed  till  this  unjust 
libel  is  wiped  away,  either  by  an  honorable  retraction 
of  the  defendant  or  by  a  verdict  of  a  J  ary  that  shidl 
set  its  stamp  upon  such  conduct  and  vindicate  the  char- 
acter of  the  maligned.  What  are  all  the  verbal  slan- 
ders on  earth,  compared  with  one  declaration  like  this, 
and  a  series  of  them  going  out  from  week  to  week? 
What  are  the  words  of  a  mere  eai  tlily  individual,  com- 
pared with  these  deliberate,  cold-blooded  attacks, 
which  leave  their  sting  behind  them,  and  will  sting, 
for  ages,  perhaps,  tliose  who  trace  their  line  of 
descent  through  the  blood  of  the  accused  ?  And  the 
man  who  wilfnot  stand  up  in  the  face  of  the  world 
— aye.  against  the  world  in  ai-ms,  if  it  be  necessary — 
to  vindicate  h'n  character  from  such  assaults  as  these, 
deserves  to  be  hooted  from  all  society,  and  to  be 
hunted  into  some  desert,  -where  he  shall  no  more  meet 
his  fellow-men.  We  may  be  maligned  by  libelous  ar- 
ticles, and  thev  may  be  followed  by  those  of  a  kindred 
character,  and  these  followed  by  a  refusal  to  retract, 
by  justifications  spread  upon  a  record,  and  by  w^hole- 
sale  assaults  of  counsel  in  Court,  with  no  evidence  in 
law  to  prove  corruption,  and  yet  counsel  talk  to  a 
Jury  about  sixpences  and  sixpenny  verdicts.  You  re- 
member, gentlemen,  that  the  counsel  almost  conceded 
that,  if  he  had  any  claim  at  all,  it  was  $^35,000,  for 
they  had  not  denied  the  amount  of  the  claim.  But  we 
do  not  pretend  that  we  are  entitled  to  that  sum,  because 
it  is  in  the  declaration  merely.  We  knew  that  the  dam- 
ages were  to  be  assessed  by  a  Jury,  yet  the  defendant 
does  not  choose  to  deny  that  we  have  suffered  damage 
to  that  amount;  and  when  he  does  not  choose  to, 
when  called  upon  under  his  oath,  you  may  fairly  infer 
that  Horace  Greeley  would  not  have  a  libel  like  that 
written  npon  him*  for  anything  like  that  sum.  And 
you  may  take  it  into  account  that  he  did  not  see  fit  to 
deny  it,  but  came  here  and  spread  his  justification 
upon  the  record,  and  it  will  stand  there  through  all 
time  unless  your  verdict  shall  wipe  it  out,  and  effectu- 
ally blot  it  from  the  minds  of  men.  The  cases  of 
Eoot  vs.  King,  in  7  Cowan,  G28,  and  Dole  vs.  Ryan, 
in  10  Johnson,  249,  show  what  the  law  is;  and  there 
are  other  cases,  with  which  I  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to 
occupy  your  time.  There  is  no  distinction  be- 
tween the  publisher  of  a  newspaper  and  an 
individual,  except  that  what  is  published  is  re- 
corded for  all  time,  and  except  as  the  power 
to  do  injury  is  greater  on  the  part  of  the  publisher  of 
a  paper,  so  he  should  be  more  scrupulous  not  to  pub- 
lish anything  in  Lis  paper  which  he  does  not  know  to 
be  true.  Where  is  the  man  who  has  any  sensibility  of 
soul  and  of  feeling,  and  who  regards  his  character  as 
worth  preserving,  who  would  not  rather  be  stabbed 
to  the  heart,  and  die  tlnis  with  no  reproach  upon  him- 
self, than  to  have  his  character,  which  is  a  thousand 
times  dearer  to  him  than  lile,  killed  for  all  time  for 
him,  for  all  time  with  his  childi'en  and  tiisgi-and- 
children  ? 

'SYith  regard  to  the  series  of  offers  which  were  sub- 
mited  here  yesterday,  it  was  asserted  that  they  were 
rejected  on  our  objection.  I  appeal  to  you,  gentle- 
men, if  we  did  not  consent,  .'t  nil  -^tn'rea  of  this  case, 


53 


that  they  might  connect  Mr.  Littlejohn  with  corrup- 
tion to  the  greatest  extent  which  they  pleased.  One 
of  their  propositions  included  the  offer  to  prove  that 
the  brother  and  brother-in-law  of  the  plaintiff  were 
owners  of  a  portion  of  the  stock  in  one  of  these  roads ; 
and  while  we  objected  to  the  residue,  we  consented 
that  they  might  prove  that,  and  we  stated  expressly, 
in  the  hearing  of  the  Court,  that  we  did  not  deeire  to 
shield  Mr.  Littlejohn  not  the  least  iota  in  this  case. 
Have  we  tried  to  prevent  the  fullest  investigation  with 
regard  to  any  corruption  which  may  extend  to  him?  Not 
at  all;  we  have  invited  it  to  the  utmost  extent;  and 
you  remember  that  my  associate  stated  yesterday,  if 
they  would  connect  the  plaintiff  with  the  corrupt 
legislation,  we  w^ould  concede,  for  the  purposes 
of  this  case,  that  the  legislation  was  corrupt. 
And  "Mr.  Littlejohn  has  not  been  called  as  a  witness 
here.''  Why,  is  there  anything  more  ridiculous  on 
earth,  coming  from  counsel,  than  that,  when  there  is 
not  one  particle  of  proof  against  Mr.  Littlejohn — not 
one  iota  of  that  justification  is  proved.  What  is  there 
to  call  him  on  the  stand  ?  We  rested  our  case,  and  it 
was  made  out  to  the  fullest  extent.  How  have  they 
shaken  it  ?  Have  they  proved  that  one  sixpence  has 
gone  into  his  hands  or  his  pocket  from  the  legislation 
of  that  year  ?  Have  they  proved  that  any  friend  of 
his  has  received  a  dollar  of  it  ?  Have  they  proved 
that  he  gave  any  vote  in  that  Assembly  for  the  purpose 
of  benefiting  any  individual  improperly  ?  Why,  upon 
the  same  hypothesis  upon  which  tlie  fraud  and  corrup- 
tion are  charged,  there  has  never  been  a  railroad 
charter  granted  in  this  State  in  which  there 
has  not  been  corruption.  There  has  never  been  a  rail- 
road charter  granted  but  what  was  intended  to  benefit 
individual  stockholders,  and  provided  for  certain  Com- 
missioners to  distribute  the  stock.  "  Private  interest !" 
Why,  you  cannot  carry  on  public  purposes  which  the 
State  does  not  carry  on  directly,  except  by  holding 
out  public  inducements  to  individuals  to  embark  their 
fund's.  This  whole  Northern  country  is  cross-barred 
with  railroads,  to  the  immeasurable  benefit  of  indivi- 
duals; and  these  railroads  have  been  constructed  by 
men  who  supposed  they  should  make  large  sums  by 
their  investment. 

But  I  am  not  going  to  talk  to  you  about  the  measure 
of  damages.  Lay  aside  all  prejudice  against  either  of 
these  parties,  and  treat  them  as  though  they  were 
individuals  from  the  farther  banks  of  the  Ganges. 
Treat  them  as  though  you  had  never  heard  of  them, 
but  had  ascertained  what  their  position  was,  and  their 
power  to  do  evil  where  they" lived.  Treat  them  as 
though  you  had  never  heard  of  them  outside  of  this 
case,  and  then  you  will  do  exact  and  equal  and  proper 
justice  between  them.  I  will  leave  it  with  twelve  in- 
telligent men  from  the  County  of  Oswego,  set  apart 
by  the  officers  of  their  respective  towns  for  the  sacred 
office  of  jurors.  I  will  leave  it  with  you,  on  your 
responsibility,  to  determine  what  should  be  done  to 
wipe  out  this  foul  and  unfounded  stam  on  the  character 
of  the  plaiutifF,  and  what  should  be  meted  out  to  the 
man  who  has  not  at  all  attacked  sixty- four  other  mem- 
bers who  voted  for  these  bills.  He  does  not  come  here 
claiming  to  be  impoverished;  his  counsel  triumph- 
antly tell  you  that  he  has  expended  a  thou- 
sand dollars  in  getting  witnesses  in  this  case. 
Money  is  free  with  him.  Calculate  the  daily  re- 
ceipts' of  the  editor  and  proprietor  of  that  paper,  wMch 
issues  an  edition  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand 
copies,  a  large  portion  of  them  daily;  and  by  the 
lowest  standard,  you  will  find  that  the  gross  receipts 
of  his  office  are  more  than  $.3,000  a  day,  irrespective  of 
the  advertising  patronage  and  the  job-work  done  in  his 
establishment.  Do  not  consider  Jiim  poor.  We  have 
not  been  able  to  reach  his  sensibilities,  and  make  him 
do  justice ;  and  I  am  satisfied  there  is  only  one  place 
through  which  he  can  be  reached,  and  that  is,  through 
the  pocket.  Try  it,  gentlemen,  and  see  if  you  cannot 
make  him  do  Mr.  Littlejohn  justice.    If  you  cannot  ' 


make  him  do  justice  to  Mr.  Littlejohn,  I  ask  you  to  da 
justice  to  him,  and  Justice  will  be  satisfied. 

REQUESTS  TO  CHARGE. 

Before  the  charge  the  counsel  for  defendant  asked 
the  Court  to  charge  the  following  propositions.  The 
defendant  asked  the  Court  to  charf^e  the  Jury: 

First :  That  if  they  believe  from  the  testimony  that 
the  defendant  acted  in  the  matter  of  the  publication  in 
question,  without  any  malice  or  mischievous  intent, 
but  solely  from  the  sense  of  duty  to  the  public,  they 
mast  find  for  the  defendant.  The  Court  declined  to 
charge  this  proposition.   The  defendant  excepted. 

Second  :  The  defendant  asked  the  Court  to  charge 
the  Jury  that  it  is  a  question  for  them  to  say  in  what 
sense  the  words  complained  of  were  used.  The  Court 
declined.   Defendant  excepted. 

Tlurd  :  The  defendant  asked  the  Court  to  charge 
the  Jury  that  it  is  a  question  for  them  to  determine 
in  what  sense  the  words  complained  of  were  under- 
stood.  The  Court  declined.   The  defendant  excepted. 

Fourth:  The  defendant  asked  the  Court  to  charge 
the  Jury  that  malice  on  the  part  of  the  defendant  is  es- 
sential in  order  to  maintain  the  action.  The  Court  de- 
clined.  The  defendant  excepted. 

Fifth:  The  defendant  asked  the  Court  to  charge  the 
Jury  that  in  the  absence  of  all  malice  on  the  part  of 
the  defendant  this  action  cannot  be  maintained.  The 
Court. declined  to  charge  the  fourth  and  fifth  propo- 
sition as  desired,  but  charged  in  the  language  of  the 
charge  to  the  Juiy  on  that  subject,  and  declined  to 
charge  otherwise.   The  defendant  excepted. 

Sixth:  The  defendant  asked  the  Court  to  charge  the 
Jury  that  if  they  believe  the  testimony  of  df.fend- 
ant,  the  presumption  of  malice  which  arises  from  the 
face  of  the  libel  is  rebutted.  The  Court  declined  to 
charge  this  proposition,  but  charged  as  in  the  seventh 
proposition  submitted  to  the  Jury,  and  declined  to 
charge  otherwise.   The  defendant  excepts. 

Seventh  :  The  defendant  asked  the  Court  to  charge 
the  Jury,  that  if  they  believe  from  the  testimony  that 
the  defendant,  at  the  time  of  the  publication  in  ques- 
tion, believed  it  to  be  true,  and  that  in  coming  to  that 
belief  he  had  exercised  due  care  and  diligence,  pru- 
dence and  discretion,  to  ascertain  the  truth  of  the 
charge,  the  defendant  is  entitled  to  their  verdict. 
The  Court  declined  to  charge,  except  as  in  the 
seventh  proposition  of  the  Judge.  The  defendan*^^ 
excepted. 

Eighth  :  The  defendant  asked  the  Court  to  charge 
the  Jury,  that  if  they  believe  that  the  defendant  made 
the  charges  in  question  solely  from  a  sense  of  duty,  he 
is  entitled  to  their  verdict,  even  though  they  should 
believe  that  it  was  a  mistaken  f  enee  of  duty.  The 
Court  declined.    The  def'eudanrs  excepted. 

CHARGE  TO  THE  JURY. 
Judge  Bacon  then  charged  the  Jury  as  follows: 
Gentlemen  of  the  Jury:  The  duty  that  I  have 
to  dischai-ge  m  this  case  is  a  very  plain  and  simple  one, 
and  I  shall  proceed  to  its  discharge  in  a  very  plain  and 
simple  manner,  and  I  trust  with  commendable  brevity. 
And  I  shall  do  so  entirely  unaffected  by  any  outside 
considerations,  and  utterly  irrespective  of  any  conse- 
quences which  maybe  supposed  to  follow  from  the 
discharge  of  that  duty.  It  is  the  privilejre,  and  busi- 
ness, and  duty  of  thsi  counsel  to  present  the  case  to  t!ie 
jury,  with  all  the  ability,  and  the  eloquence,  and  the 
zeal,  which  have  been  manifested  in  this  case  by  the 
respective  counsel  who  have  addressed  you.  It  is' their 
privilege  and  their  right  to  make  to  you,  elaborate, 
learned,  and  lengthy  arguments,  and,  if  they  shall 
choose,  to  make  earnest  and  even  passionate  appeals  to 
you. 

The  business  of  the  Court  and  the  duty  it  has  to  per- 
form are  quite  ditterent;  they  demand  no  such  zeal,  no 


54 


snoh  carnestneBS,  and  no  Bucb  seneibility.  I  have  nothing 
to  do,  LTt'iitleinen,  but  to  direct  von  to  some  plaiu.  aim- 
j>le  proposiliona  of  law,  whiili  I  suppose  to  be  involved 
lu  the  case,  and  whiib  are  to  be  taken  by  you  ay  land- 
marks and  {guides,  and  to  sufrgest  to  you  a  very  few 
topics  to  which  your  attention  Bhould  be  directed, 
wnen  you  come  to  deliberate  on  the  case  in  the  jury- 
room. 

And  I  nniBt  ask  yon,  gentlemen,  in  the  first  place  to 
dismiss  from  your  attention  a  very  considerable  portion 
of  thai  which  has  been  talked  about  here,  lieeauee, 
in  the  sliape  which  the  case  has  assumed,  and  within 
the  contracted  issues  to  which  1  felt  it  my  duty  to 
confine  the  cause,  a  great  deal  whicii  was  said  in  the 
opening,  of  course  would  now  be  deemed  irrelevant  to 
the  cate.  That  opening  was  adapted  to  a  state  of 
things  which  the  coimsel  very  rightfully,  as  he 
deemed  was  the  law,  supposed  it  to  be  his  duty  to 
open  to  yon.  And  if  I  had  construed  agreeably  to  the 
view  taken  of  it  by  the  counsel,  the  field  would  have 
been  a  very  large  one  and  a  very  wide  one,  and  his 
opening  none  too  extended  for  the  field  he  would  have 
felt  himself  obliged  to  occupy;  but  having  made  a 
ruling  in  the  early  part  of  this  case,  which,  whether 
right  or  wrong,  is  for  the  present  the  law  of  the  case, 
we  are  brought  down  to  a  very  narrow  issue,  and  a 
very  few  points  to  which  it  is  needful  that  3'our  atten 
tion  should  be  directed. 

The  counsel  for  the  defendant  claims  that  the  Jury 
is  to  judge  whether  this  is  a  libel  or  not,  and  whether 
it  imputes  personal  corruption  to  the  plaiutitf  or  not ; 
and  that  in  this  respect  you  are  at  liberty  to  construe 
the  language  of  this  libel  as  you  see  fit,  and  as  in  your 
judgment  it  shall  seem  to  demand  at  your  hands.  Kow, 
gentlemen,  as  a  general  1  proposition  I  do  not  dissent 
to  that;  for  the  general  rule  of  law  is  that  the  jurors 
are  the  judges  as  to  whether  the  publication  alleged  to 
be  libelous,  is  so  or  not.  I  admit  that  to  be  the  general 
rule  of  law,  but  I  do  not  think  it  to  be  the  invariable 
rule  of  law ;  and  I  think  a  case  could  be  presented — and 
unless  I  much  misconceive  it,  this  case  is  one — where 
the  general  rule  does  not  apply.  If  a  libel 
is  doubtful  and  uncertain  in  its  meaning  ;  if 
it  consists  of  a  variety  of  allegations  upon  a  variety  of 
subjects;  tlie  duty  of  construing  them  may  very 
properly  fall  within  the  province  of  the  Jury.  And  I 
can" illustrate  that  as  well  by  the  case  of  Fry  agt.  Ben- 
nett, which  has  been  read  to  you,  as  by  any  other  case. 
In  that  case,  the  libel  complained  of,  consisted  of  a  va- 
riety of  allegations,  some  of  which  consisted  of  nothing 
more  than  what  might  be  deemed  fair,  though  perhaps 
severe,  criticisms,  upon  the  conduct  of  the  plaintiff  in 
that  suit,  as  a  conductor  of  an  opera;  and  there  were 
other  allegations  that  imputed  to  him  that  which  was 
in  its  nature  disgraceful  and  perhaps  even  criminal.  I 
do  not  stop  to  characterize  them,  but  there  were  a  vari- 
ety of  allegations  of  tliis  kind,  in  regard  to  some  of 
which  the  defendant  claimed  they  were  privileged,  and 
in  regard  to  all  of  which  the  plaintiff  claimed  he  was 
entitled  to  recover,  because  they  were  not  within  any 
such  privilege.  The  Court,  in  giving  the  case  to  the 
Jury,  told  tliem  they  must  take  these  libels  themselves 
and  discriminate  with  regard  to  what  portion  of  them 
came  within  a  just  definition  of  legitimate  criticism, 
and  that  which  was  without  the  bounds  of  just  criti- 
cism, and  was  defamatory,  injurious  and  libelous  in  its 
character.  That  case  well  illustrates  a  class  of  cases 
where  the  Jury  are  indeed  the  judges,  and  should  I 
rightfully  be  the  sole  judges,  of  the  character  of  the 
libelous  charge  alleged. 

But  in  this  case,  gentlemen,  I  was  obliged  to  make 
a  ruling  in  order  to  dctenijine  what  were  the  issues  to 
be  tried,  and  in  order  to  confine  the  proof  to  what  was 
fairly  triable  before  you,  and  I  was  obliged  myself  to 
give  a  construction  to  the  language  of  this  libel;  and  I 
gave  that  construction  to  it, in  which  I  laid  down  the  rule 
that  the  libel  imi^uted  personal  corruption  to  the  plain- 
tiff, and  that  any  proof  outside  of  that  was  irrelevant 


proof,  and  therefore  not  admissable.  I  say  I  web  obliged 
to  make  that  ruling;  for  the  case  was  one  which 
in  my  judgment  called  for  it;  and,  having  made  tliat 
ruling,  it  is  to  be  taken  as  the  law  ot  the  case  uow, 
and  to  be  held  as  the  law  throughout.  Now,  that 
ruling  may  have  been  erroneous,  and  all  wrong;  and 
it  is  very  likely  that,  having  begun  with  this  error,  1 
may  have  tottered  on  continuously;  but  there  is  great 
satisfaction  in  knowing  that  this  wrontr,  if  it  be  such, 
is  not  irreparable,  and  will  not  injurio\isly  atl'ect  the 
defendant  in  this  case;  for,  happily,  there  is  another 
tribunal,  which  revises  all  my  errors — all  errors  com- 
mitted in  the  Circuit,  in  the  haste  in  which  causes  are 
tried  there,  and  in  the  abnence  of  all  needful  delioera- 
tion — a  tribunal  that  sits  in  calm  judgment  on  all  these 
cases,  and  rights  the  wrong  where  it  exists;  or,  if  it 
does  not  exist,  allirms  the  ruling.  Therefore,  Centle- 
men,  there  will  be  an  opportunity  hereafter  to  correct 
these  errors  into  which  1  may  have  fallen,  and  the  de- 
fendant will  be  deprived  of  no  just  right  which  ])er- 
tains  to  him  in  that  regard.  That  being  the  case,  tiie 
first  proposition  of  law  which  I  have  to  lay  down 
is  this: 

First :  The  Court  having  ruled  that  the  alleged  libel 
contained  a  charge  of  personal  corruption,  the  Jury 
will  receive  this  as  the  construction  of  the  language, 
and  consequently  that  the  words  are  in  law  libelous. 

You  will  take  that,  gentlemen,  as  the  ruling  of  the 
Court  in  this  case.  The  construction  I  give  to  tlie 
words  is  that  it  imputes  a  charge  of  personal  coiTup- 
tion,  and  therefore  is  in  itself  libelous.  This  relieves 
you  from  the  duty  of  construing  it  for  yourselves. 

Second :  A  libel  is  a  willful  and  mahicious  publica- 
tion concerning  another;  but  malice  so  far  as  the  law 
requires  it  to  sustain  the  action,  is  implied  from  the 
publication  of  that  which  is  untrue;  the  law  pre- 
suming it  to  exist  in  such  a  case.  Therel'ore  express 
?7m/ice  is  not  required  to  sustain  the  action;  but  this 
presumption  may  be  repelled  by  circumstances  that 
tend  to  disprove  it. 

Now,  in  this,  I  don't  know  but  I  may  be  supposed 
to  run  coimter  to  the  decision  ©f  the  Court  of  Appeals, 
in  the  case  to  which  my  attention  was  called.  If  I  do, 
I  shall  be  foimd  to  be  in  error ;  but  I  have  always  sup- 
posed that  w  as  a  true  proposition  in  law,  from  the 
earliest  day  in  which  my  attention  as  a  student  was 
ever  called  to  the  law  appertaining  to  libel  and  slander. 
And  although  Judge  Selden  seems  to  imagine  a  sort  of 
imaginary  and  attenuated  line  between  malice  in  law 
and  malice  in  fact,  yet  as  I  have  always  understood  the 
law  to  be,  that  from  the  falsity  of  the  publication, 
malice  is  implied,  though  it  may  not  in  point  of  fact 
exist;  because  no  man  is  at  liUerty  to  publish  an^^thing 
but  the  truth;  and  if  he  publishes  that  whi.-h  is  not 
true,  the  fact  of  its  untruth,  in  the  law,  implies  malice 
in  the  publication.  It  is  very  true  that  in  that  case 
Judge  Selden  held  that  the  uiference  of  the  law  did  not 
exist ;  and  the  reason  was  that  it  was  a  privileged 
communication.  If  I  had  held  in  this  case  that 
the  publication  here  was  privileged,  then  the  inference 
of  the  law  would  have  been  displaced,  it  would  not 
have  existed.  In  that  case  in  the  Court  of  Appeak, 
the  communication  was  a  privileged  one  and  tberefore 
it  was  protected  prima  Jacw^  and  the  plaintiff  was 
obliged  to  show,  in  order  to  maintain  his  action,  that  it 
was  uttered  maliciously.  Because,  alihougli  when  a 
party  has  uttered  a  truth,  yet  if  he  is  actuated  by  malice 
in  that  regard,  he  is  still  liable  to  be  prosecuted  and  pay 
damages,  lie  pays  them  in  that  case  because  he  is 
actuated  by  malicious  motives  extending  beyond  the 
mere  fact  of  publisniiig  that  which  is  not  true.  That 
proposition,  then,  is  the  law,  which  I  lay  down  for 
vour  guidance;  that  the  law  implies  the  publication  to 
be  malicious  if  it  be  untrue ;  and  in  this  case  the  de- 
fendant, standing  unjustified,  and  theim)>utation  being 
one  of  personal  corruption,  and  there  being  no  ijroof 
that  there  was  personal  corruption,  the  allegation  is  an 


55 


untrue  allegation;  therefore  by  law  is  impliedly 
malicious. 

Third  :  If  one  by  mit?take,  or  inadvertence,  or  want 
of  pufficieut  knowledge,  publishes  a  libel,  the  law  im- 
pute:i  malice  only  so  far  as  to  make  him  liable  for  such 
damages  as  the  Jury  may  deem  reasonable  under  all 
the  circamstances  of  the  case. 

The  law  only  imputes  malice  just  so  far  as  to  make 
him  liable  for  damage s  which  may  eeem  reasonable. 
They  may  be  nominal  damages,  just  according  to  the 
circumstances,  there  being  nothing  to  enhance  them  to 
any  aggravated  degree,  and  this  covers  that  class  of 
cases. 

Fourth  :  But  there  may  exist  actual  malice  in  the 
purpose  and  spirit  of  the  author  of  the  publication ;  or 
ihere  may  be  an  entire  absence  of  malice  on  his  part, 
and  both  are  subjects  of  proof  outside  of  the  mere  fact 
of  publication. 

Now  the  plaintiff  may  prove  express  malice ;  he  may 
prove  that  the  party  has  said,  "  I  will  publit^h  such  an 
article  against  such  a  man;  I  mean  to  follow  him  up 
and  have  vengeance  against  him — I  will  have  it." 
Expressions  of  that  kind,  indicating  a  purpose  and 
spirit  and  intent  to  inflict  an  injury,  or  at  all  events 
that  the  party  is  not  actuated  by  an  innocent  purpose, 
and  that  he  does  not  act  by  inadvertence  or  through 
mistake — that  it  is  not  an  error  of  judgment  or  of  in- 
formation, but  that  it  is  a  deliberate  design  to  inflict 
an  injury,  and  that  he  sets  about  preparing  the  means 
by  which  the  injury  is  to  be  inflicted.  On  tjie 
other  band,  there  may  be  a  perfect  absence  of  malice, 
there  may  be  no  thought  of  ill  will  and  no  purpose  to 
injure,  but  simply  to  utter  what  he  thinks  to  be  true, 
with  a  motive  which  seems  to  him  to  justify  it;  or 
that  he  seems  to  be  called  upon  by  some  great  public 
exigency  to  utter  what  he^thinlis  just  and  right, 
though  it  may  be  mistaken,  untrue,  and  false,  yet  he 
has  not  the  animus  and  the  purpose  to  inflict  an  in- 
jury; therefore  he  has  no  actual  malice  in  the  case. 

Fifth:  If  actual  iralice  is  shown  to  exist,  it  will  not 
protect  one  who  has  published  that  which  is  prima 
facie  libelous,  although  without  this^  the  publication 
would  be  privileged,  or  even  justifiable. 

This  is  only  repeating  what  I  said  in  a  more  specific 
form.  Wherever  you  show  actual  malice  you  deprive 
the  party  of  any  justification  he  had  by  reason  of  the 
fact  that  what  he  said  was  privUiged;  because  if  a 
man  will  say  what  is  privileged,  with  a  wicked  and 
malicious  purpose,  it  does  not  excuse  him. 

Sixtii :  If  the  plaintifi"  has  proved  here  the  exist- 
ence of  actual  malice,  that  may  be  considered  by  the 
Jury  in  aggi-avation  of  damages,  and  those  of  a  puni- 
tive character  may  be  given. 

And  tnat  is  tne  only  case  in  which  punitive  dam- 
ages can  be  had,  but  only  those  which  naturally  flow 
from  the  utterance  of  a  lihel.  It  is  where  a  malicious 
character  stamps  the  publication  that  you  can  go 
beyond  the  ordinary  character  of  damages  and  give 
those  which  are  called  "  punitive,"  or  sometimes 
vindictive^  which  is  not  a  good  term. 

S  eve  nth  :  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  defendant  has 
satisfied  the  jury  that  he  was  not  actuated  by  malice, 
but  published  what  he  did  without  any  malicious  mo- 
tive and  believing  it  to  be  true,  that  is  to  be  considered 
by  the  jury,  and  wUl  materially  mitigate  the  damages. 

"That  is  a  contrary  fact,  and  it  reduces  the  damages, 
if  the  defendant  shows  that  he  was  actuated  by  good 
motives  and  had  no  malice  in  his  heart,  no  design  to 
injure  and  no  purpose  of  vengeance,  and  that  he  did 
not  indulge  in  any  vindictive,  injurious  and  hateful 
feelings  toward  the  party,  but  that  he  uttered  what  he 
believed  to  be  true — what  he  had  heard  from  others, 
and  what  he  supposed  he  had  a  right  to  publish  be- 
cause it  was  true — in  the  absence  of  all  feelings  of 
hatred,  animosity  and  IQ-will,  then,  gentlemen,  it  is 
very  clear  that  the  damages  should  be  essentially  miti- 
gated; because  you  take  out  of  the  slander,  or  the 


libel,  the  sting  and  its  intensity,  and  you  strip  it  of 
that  which  gives  it  its  worst  character  and  form. 

Whenever  the  defendant  presents  himself  for  proof 
of  this  kind,  plainlilfcan  again  prove  this  on  other  oc- 
casions the  party  has  made  malicious  and  defamatory 
attacks  in  a  harsh  and  cruel  manner.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  defendant  has  a  right  to  show  that  his  per- 
sonal relations  toward  the  party,  were  ahyays  good 
and  kind,  and  that  he  had  no  practical  ill  will  toward 
him,  and  did  not  look  upon  him  in  the  light  of  an  ene- 
my; but  in  respect  to  what  he  uttered,  he  did  wiiat  he 
believed  to  be  true,  and  what  he  thought  he  was  called 
upon  to  utter  by  high  considerations  of  the  public  good. 
If  such  a  state  of  things  exists,  then  the  damages,  as 
you  perceive,  are  gi-eatly  mitigated. 

Now  in  this  case  upon  one  side,  there  is  some 
proof  that  some  malicious  motives  existed.  On  the 
other  side,  it  is  insisted  that  there  is  proof  of  the  abso- 
lute and  entire  absence  of  all  malicious  motives.  The 
proof  on  that  subject  lies  within  a  very  narrow  com- 
pass; it  was  drawn  entirely  and  exclubively  from  the 
defendant  himself.  He  states  upon  the  stand,  that  so  far 
as  he  knows,  his  personal  relations  towards  Mr.  Lit- 
tlejohn  were  of  a  friendly  character;  that  so  far  as  he 
knew  himself  he  had  no  malice  in  making  the  libel. 

On  the  other  side,  it  is  insisted  that,  in  addition  to 
the  intrine.ic  character  of  the  act  itself,  he  had  pub- 
lished in  regard  to  the  plaintifi"  other  statements,  and 
had  made  other  allegations  in  regard  to  him ;  that  he 
had  opposed  his  election  to  the  Speakership  of  the 
House,  and  that  he  had  publij^hed  something  with  regard 
to  him,  which,  on  being  asked  to  explain  and  retract, 
he  had  declined  to  do  so,  except  in  the  way  which  he 
thought  it  was  equally  just  and  right  he  sliould  be 
called  upon  to  explain.  And  it  is  said  this  shows  an 
inimical  and  malicious  feeling.  It  will  be  for  you  to 
judge  with  regard  to  this.  Here  is  the  statement  of 
the  defendant,  in  which  he  states  just  what  he  did  and 
just  what  he  th. ought.  And  the  letter  which  has  been 
read  is  also  before  you,  gentlemen,  and  in  evidence.  I 
must  say,  with  regard  to  it,  that  1  think  it  a  very 
manly  and  honorable  letter,  and  such  as  indicates  on 
the  part  of  him  who  wrote  it  no  feeling  which  any 
honorable  mind  might  not  entertam.  Still,  you  are  the 
judges  with  regard  to  all  that,  and  with  regard  to  the 
conduct  of  the  defendant  on  the  occasions  which  have 
been  spoken  of;  you  are  to  say  whether,  in  your  judg- 
ment, they  indicate  that  he  was  actuated  by  motives 
of  ill-will  and  malice,  or  whether,  divested  of  all 
motives  of  that  kind,  he  did  what  he  did  in  good  faith, 
and  in  the  exercise  of  what  he  thought  were  his  just 
rights,  without  any  design  or  intent  to  injure  or  defame 
or  oppress  the  man. 

I  leave  that  question  of  this  case  with  you,  gentle- 
men ;  your  conclusions  upon  it  are  to  be  drawn  from 
the  testimony  which  is  in  the  case  and  not  from  any- 
thing outside,  for  upon  this  particular  head  you  have 
nothing  to  enlighten  you  except  the  testimony  which 
was  given  here  upon  the  stand.  Finally,  gentlemen,  I 
have  to  say  to  you : 

Eighth  •  The  amount  of  damages  are  in  the  sound  dis- 
cretion of  the  Jury ;  they  are  not  to  be  measured  by 
any  standard  of  dollars  and  cents;  that  is,  the  Court 
has  no  rule  to  give,  by  whi..h  you  are  to  be  guided; 
you  are  the  judges  in  that  respect,  you  are  the  ai-bitra- 
tors  in  respect  to  what  shall  be  awarded  in  compensa- 
tion. They  are  intended  to  repair  the  injury  alleged 
to  be  done  to  the  plaiuiifi",  and  the  pain  and  mental 
suffering  which  he  has  undergone  in  consequence  of 
this  libel  uttered  against  him,  are  fair  considerations 
for  the  Jury.  And  in  estiamting  the  damages  upon  the 
foregoing  principles,  the  character,  condition,  position 
and  influence  of  the  respective  parties  is  to  be  taken 
into  the  account. 

One  party  may  be  more  likely  to  suffer  from  a  libel 
than  another;  for  all  men  do  not  sufler  alike  by  any 
means.  Men  differ  in  constitution  and  in  temperament ; 
they  differ  in  their  surroundings  and  relationships  in 


5 


6 


life;  they  difler  iu  the  positiou  they  occupy.  The 
plaintift'  is  a  public  man — a  uiau  of  mark  and  distinc- 
tion; a  man  wlio  had  occupied  an  elevated  place  in  the 
Legislature  of  tlie  State;  and  such  a  mim  would  be 
likely  to  feel  a  libel  with  greater  acuteness  than  one 
living  in  a  more  obscure  j)Osition  and  traveling  in  a 
Buialler  round  and  occupying  a  mueh  more  limited 
field.  On  the  other  hsmd,  the  power  of  the  party  in- 
juring, if  any  injury  has  been  inflicted,  may  also  be 
taken  into  consideration.  The  position  the  defendant 
occupies  as  the  propiietor  of  an  infiueutial  press — a 
paper  maintaining  the  largest  circulation,  certainly,  of 
any  paper  on  tliis  continent,  and  probably  in  the 
world,  nmch  read,  extensively  distributed  and  widely 
appreiiated,  and  whi^^^h  has  become  almost  a  public 
institution  iu  the  Stare,  under  the  guidance  of  great 
.  ability,  is  to  be  considered.  An  engine  of  this  de- 
scription, of  course,  is  capable  of  inflicting  more  injury 
than  one  of  inferior  character,  smaller  circula- 
tion, and  a  lower  type  of  respectability.  For  if  an 
injury  has  realty"  been  inflicted,  its  intensity 
must  be  aggravated  by  the  high  respectability 
of  the  quarter  from  whence  it  comes.  All  these  con- 
siderations may  be  taken  into  account  by  you  in  arriv- 
ing at  a  just  conclusion  in  this  case.  They  are  all  I 
have  telt  it  my  duty  to  mention  to  you,  for  I  do  not  re- 
gard it  as  any  part'of  my  province  to  step  out  of  the 
plain,  simple  path  which  the  law  has  marked  out  for 
me — to  lay  down  the  law  which  I  suppose  enters  into 
the  case,  and  ask  you  to  give  to  those  propositions  such 
weight,  and  to  those  considerations  such  importance  as 
you  think  they  are  entitled  to.  Upon  the  whole 
subject  of  damages,  in  a  case  where  the  Jury  come  to 
the  conclusion  that  a  right  to  recover  them  has  been 
established,  the  rule  is,  perhaps,  no  where  better  ex- 
pressed than  in  the  words  of  Justice  Bosworth,  in  the 
case  of  Fry  vs.  Bennett,  which  I  will  repeat  to  the 
Jury,  as  containing  a  proper  direction  for  them  in  this 
case:  *'  The  true  rule  is,  that  if  the  defendant  fails  to 
justify,  the  plaintifl"is  entitled  to  recover,  at  all  events, 
his  actual  damages.  He  has  a  light  to  these,  although 
the  defendant,  at  the  time  of  publishing  the  libels,  be- 
lieved the  facts  alleged  to  be  true.  'The  actual  dam- 
ages are  to  be  determined  by  the  Jury,  in  the  exercise 
of  a  sound  discretion,  upon  a  careful  consideration  of 
the  oftense  or  misconduct  imputed  to  the  plaintiff,  the 
circumstances  of  the  publieation,  the  extent  of  its  cir- 
culation, and  the  natural  and  necessary  consequences 


of  such  a  publication,  according  to  the  results  of  hu- 
man observation  and  experience."  Be  yourselves  the 
judges  aa  to  what  shall  be  the  result  of  tliis  nuit.  I 
have  no  personal  desire,  nor  wish,  nor  purpose,  other 
than  that  vou  sliall  do  justice,  exact  and  ample  justice, 
between  these  parties. 

The  counsel  for  the  defendant  excepted  to  the  lirat 
second,  fourth,  sixtli,  and  eighth  propositions  of  the 
charge.  A/so  to  that  portion  of  the  charge  tliat  holds 
that  the  plaintilf  can  prove  that  on  other  occasions  the 
defendant  has  published  articles  and  doDe  that  which 
is  claimed  as  evidence  of  malice.  Also  desired  the 
Court  to  charge  further  that  the  act  of  Mr.  Greeley  in 
opposing  the  election  of  Mr.  Littlejohn  as  Speaker, 
after  the  transaction  in  question,  and  after  this  suit 
had  been  threatened,  cannot  be  taken  in  evidence. 

Court  declined.   Exception  for  defendant. 

DISAGREEMENT  OF  THE  JURY. 
The  Jury  retired  about  4  o'clock  p.  m.  At  about  8 
o'clock  in  the  evening,  in  the  absence  of  the  defendant 
and  bis  counsel,  the  Jury  came  into  court  and  stated 
that  they  Avere  unable  to  agree,  and  made  some  inquiry 
of  the  Court  as  to  whether  he  liad  instructed  them  that 
the  act  was  a  libel.  The  Court  repiated  the  propo- 
sition contained  in  the  charge,  reading  from  his  min- 
utes; and  again  the  Jury  letired.  It  is  understood 
that  after  the  Jury  retired  one  man  of  their  number, 
who  had  heretofore  been  for  giving  the  plaintifl"  nomi- 
nal damages,  refused  to  do  so,  so  that  the  Jury  stood 
nine  for  the  defendant,  two  for  giving  nominal  dam- 
ages to  the  plaintifT,  and  one  for  large  damages  to 
plaintiff.  About  9|  o'clock  the  Jury  again  came  into 
court,  and  stated  they  were  still  unable  to  agi-ee.  One 
of  the  jurors  asked  the  Court  if  the  Jury  were  at  lib- 
erty to  decide  upon  the  question  whether  the  article 
complamed  of  was  in  fact  a  libel.  The  Court  replied 
that  he  had  twice  instructed  them  on  that  point,  and  if 
he  had  not  been  understood  he  did  not  think  it  possible 
he  should  now  be  understood.  Thereupon  the  Jury 
were  discharged. 


